Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Road Traffic (Licensing)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take steps to relieve mini-buses and other vehicles run by youth clubs and various charities from licensing requirements under the Road Traffic Acts.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): I am considering this matter, but I am not yet convinced that the full implications of such a step have been appreciated by those who are pressing for it.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the Minister aware that we agree that this is a complicated matter and that we are grateful for his interest? Is he prepared to receive considered representations from those affected, whether in Essex or elsewhere, for there is much public interest in the matter?

Mr. Marks: Yes, the National Association of Youth Clubs and the National Council of Social Service have a working party looking at the matter, and I look forward to receiving their report. I shall need to consult the local authorities and both sides of the bus industry.

Mr. Kinnock: Apart from the specific uses that have already been mentioned, is my hon. Friend aware that the suggestion by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and others would be strenuously opposed by workers in the transport industry? Does he agree that the idea should be approached with some circumspection by communities who think there might be some advantage in instituting the new system?

Mr. Marks: My hon. Friend is correct. There is a danger of the existing bus services being affected should this idea be considerably extended.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I tell the House that hon. Members who remain standing after I have called someone else to speak as an indication to me not to forget them are unlikely to be called ahead of others?

Mr. Mayhew: Will the Minister bear in mind in giving the further consideration he has promised that the licensing system is at least primarily based upon the need for safety? Is it not absurd that a licence is unnecessary in these circumstances if no charge is made, whereas it is necessary when a charge is levied?

Mr. Marks: The licensing system was not based on safety, although safety should be an important factor in our consideration. It arose because of the competitive nature of the bus industry in the past. We are operating under the 1960 Act.

Mr. Les Huckfield: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the original intention of the legislation was to meet public need and to provide protection for existing operators? Does he recognise that many Labour Members feel that if large areas of the country had mini-buses, mini-cabs and private operators as their only means of transport, that could result in transport chaos? Will he examine the possibility——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the time not for making a case but for asking questions.

Mr. Marks: I am examining the possibility. I have some idea of what my hon. Friend meant. The unions and the operators are extremely concerned about any relaxation of licensing, and understandably so. As my hon. Friend says, we have to think of the public interest. It might well be that existing bus services would be affected by any great extension of this system.

British Rail (Chairman)

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to meet the Chairman of British Rail.

Mr. Newton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet the Chairman of British Rail.

Mr. Crawford: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further meetings he proposes to hold with the Chairman of British Rail.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Anthony Crosland): As hon. Members will already know, I met the Chairman at the beginning of this week, when he advised me that he did not wish to be reappointed when his present term of office expires in September.
I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to the unstinting efforts of Sir Richard Marsh to promote the interests of the railways and railwaymen in what has been a very difficult period for them. His knowledge and experience will of course be available during the critical period ahead of consultations about the future development of transport policy. I hope to make an announcement about the Chairman's successor before long.

Mr. Jessel: Why have the Government allowed Sir Richard Marsh and the British Railways Board recently to increase British Rail fares in such a way that commuters have to pay 17 per cent. extra as against a 10 per cent. increase on inter-city fares so that the quarterly season ticket from Hampton to Waterloo, for example, has doubled from £31 to £62? Is the Minister aware——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough to get on with.

Mr. Crosland: The average commuter gets the same subsidy as any other passenger. The reason for the increase in fares is that the Government have set British Rail certain short-term financial targets and in order to meet those targets it is for British Rail, not the Government, to decide whether fare increases will produce a net increase in revenue.

Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend say whether in any recent conversations with the Chairman of British Rail any plan has been outlined for the integration of our transport system?

Mr. Crosland: The question of the integration or co-ordination of the different parts of the transport system will play a central part in the consultative document which I hope to issue next month.

Mr. Newton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the commuters of Essex, and no doubt everywhere else, are as sick and tired of the absence of a proper Government policy for the railways as is Sir Richard Marsh? Will he tell us when we are likely to get a policy which will take proper account of the social and planning consequences of what is happening to commuter services?

Mr. Crosland: I am distressed to hear that the commuters of Essex are sick and tired. If the hon. Gentleman watched the Chairman of British Rail on television on Monday night, he would have observed that his criticisms were directed equally to Governments of both parties, certainly not only to this Government. I hope to issue a very exhaustive consultative document on future transport policy next month.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: When appointing the next Chairman of British Rail, will my right hon. Friend choose a man with knowledge of the railway industry who is a long-standing member of the Labour Party and sympathetic to the social content of this sector of public transport?

Mr. Crosland: I have had a lot of offers from hon. Friends who are members of one or other of the various transport unions.

Mr. Crawford: I should like to put a simple and straightforward question to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give a simple and straightforward answer. Can he give a categorical assurance that there will be no cut-backs in the railway network in Scotland? The Scottish National Party is extremely concerned about reports that there may be cut-backs.

Mr. Crosland: I have already made it clear on innumerable occasions in this House that the suggestions illustrated in a map of alleged railway cuts are without foundation. I cannot guarantee that every line in the country will remain for


eternity, but I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that the major part of our existing railway network will be preserved.

Mr. Bagier: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity of discounting some of the comments which were made when Sir Richard Marsh resigned and which suggested that one reason for his resignation was that he had a foresight of what the review would say and disliked the fact that the railways were to be knocked to pieces by my right hon. Friend? Will he take this opportunity of either confirming or denying that suggestion?

Mr. Crosland: Naturally, I do not like to speak on behalf of Sir Richard Marsh, but I do not think that he would object if I said that that was not his reason for resigning. His reason was that he felt that under successive Governments—I think that he directed his criticism more at the previous Government than at this—the railways had not been given sufficiently clear objectives and so he did not want to continue for a further term. I hope that that criticism, which, incidentally, has a lot of force in it, will be met when we publish the consultative document.

Mr. Raison: It is untrue that Sir Richard Marsh was more critical of the previous Government than of this. On behalf of the Opposition, I should like to join in the Secretary of State's thanks to Sir Richard Marsh for his services to British Rail.
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he will give full backing to whoever becomes the new Chairman of British Rail in a determined drive to achieve financial and managerial discipline on the railways?

Mr. Crosland: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to Sir Richard Marsh. The answer to the last part of his question is "Yes".

Improvement Grants

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be able to make an announcement concerning the raising of the present rateable value limits restricting the availability of improvement grants.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I have already announced increases in the rateable value limits for grants for conversion schemes, and I am considering whether other changes in the rules are needed.

Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware that if he could speed up the raising of the limits, that would have the effect of assisting the Government in their stated policy of concentrating on renovation rather than demolition? This matter is causing concern at the moment. This one step would help enormously if he could announce it quickly.

Mr. Freeson: We will do that as soon as we can. I accept the general proposition put to me by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lawson: When considering further developments, will the Minister give particular consideration to the possibility of raising the rateable value limit, as that affects the provision of extra accommodation for the disabled?

Mr. Freeson: I will certainly take that point aboard. I hope in the not too distant future to make a statement on the progress which has been made generally in housing for the disabled during the last 12 months or so.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present levels of improvement grants are approximately half what they were under the Conservative Administration? Does he not think that two years is sufficient time to see that there is a need for some change towards relaxing the rateable value criteria?

Mr. Freeson: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is seeking from me. I have already indicated the recent decision by my right hon. Friend to change the rateable values for new conversions. Other ideas are being looked at and we will make an announcement as soon as we can.

Regional Water Authorities

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals to make regional water authorities more democratic and representative of consumers.

The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin): The structure of the membership of the water authorities is one of the matters to be raised in the consultative document on the review of the water industry, which will be published tomorrow.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the water authorities dispense a great deal of public money, often frivolously, for instance, on personalised car number plates, money that is raised by precept from local authorities without direct representation on those water authorities? Does he accept that there is a strong case for local authorities being directly represented and for their members being accountable to them?

Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend has made an interesting series of points. I should like him to wait until tomorrow to read the consultative document. I think that all hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, who have views on the subject will be well advised to communicate those views after the document has been published.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will the document to be published tomorrow provide some way by which the consumer can approach these bodies through the Local Government Commissioners? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a gap at present because neither the Parliamentary Commissioner nor the Local Government Commissioners can take up complaints against these bodies, which seem to be entirely irresponsible in the technical sense of the term?

Mr. Silkin: I do not think that it would serve the interests of public policy to give the hon. and learned Gentleman a sneak preview of the document to be published tomorrow. The general question of liaison between water authorities and those who use the services is discussed in the paper.

Mr. Whitehead: Is it not a fact that the regional water authorities have not exercised that restraint in the raising of revenue which was called for by the Secretary of State for local authorities generally because they are not democratically accountable?

Mr. Silkin: The temptations are very great on a day like this, but I suggest that my hon. Friend waits until the consulta-

tive document is published. We will then welcome any advice which he or other hon. Members may give us.

Mr. Wigley: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that in drawing up this document, which is to be published tomorrow, consideration was given to the recommendations of the Daniel Committee on the relationship between the Welsh National Water Development Authority and the regional water authorities in England?

Mr. Silkin: I do not know what the words "sneak preview" are in Welsh, but the hon. Gentleman cannot get round me that way.

Preston

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will pay an official visit to Preston to discuss house building prospects over the next three years.

Mr. Freeson: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to visit Preston. I will, however, be visiting the Northwest Region later this year as part of my programme of visits to discuss housing programmes and policies with local authorities throughout England.

Mr. Thorne: In what way will the public expenditure cuts affect the slum clearance programme of the Preston District Council?

Mr. Freeson: In no way. There is no reason to believe that the recently published White Paper proposals should affect Preston's or any other local authority's plans. There is no ceiling on local authority new building construction. Indeed, the programme about which Preston has informed my Department recently shows a marked increase in housing activities in the next three years over the last three to four years.

Mr. Raison: How can the hon. Gentleman square that answer with the fact that in the White Paper on Local Government Expenditure in England and Wales there is a figure showing a reduction of £300 million in capital spending on housing in the coming year?

Mr. Freeson: It excludes new house building.

Mr. Loyden: If my hon. Friend finds the time to go to Preston, will he also call into the Garston constituency and have a look at the housing estate at Netherley, where there is blatant evidence of substandard building by private enterprise from which tenants have been suffering since that estate was built?

Mr. Freeson: I have no present plans so to do, but if my hon. Friend cares to put any particular points to me on which he thinks I might be able to assist, he is welcome to write to me about them.

Sewerage Installations (Wisbech)

Mr. Freud: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to visit the new sewerage installations in the Wisbech district.

Mr. John Silkin: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can hardly wait, but prior engagements make it unlikely that it will be for some time.

Mr. Freud: My constituents will be sorry to hear that. They would like to have complained to the right hon. Gentleman about the appalling state in which the roads were left by the contractors; the total disregard they showed for pedestrians by neglect of the footpaths while doing the work; and the lack of help or advice given to traders who claimed compensation for lost turnover due to these works.

Mr. Silkin: So far as that is a question or a series of questions, I have a great deal of sympathy with the local traders. As the hon. Member knows, we have been in correspondence about this matter. I have asked the Anglia Water Authority to look into the question. If the hon. Gentleman cares to keep me posted on the views of the traders in the light of that, I will of course be ready, able and willing to discuss the matter with him.

Planning Applications

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what surveys he has conducted to ascertain the degree of publicity given to planning applications by local authorities in accordance with the guidance given in Circular 71/73.

Mr. John Silkin: A sample survey, undertaken in 1974, showed that the

guidance given in Circular 71/73 was being generally followed.

Mr. Watkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that the publicity given to planning applications varies enormously among different local authorities? Will he consider laying down minimum mandatory requirements?

Mr. Silkin: The result of the sample survey is interesting in this connection. It showed that over a third of district councils used site notices over and above the statutory requirements and that more than four-fifths of all the councils concerned gave neighbour notification. I agree that it can be a bit patchy and that some authorities are much better than others, but the discretionary suggestions made by the Department in paragraph 7 of Circular 71/73, if observed, would get rid of all the difficulties.

Housing Land

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with representatives of the House-Builders Federation in the last month regarding the supply of of land for private house building; and with what results.

Mr. John Silkin: There has been the usual regular contact between my Department and the House-Builders Federation on a wide range of matters including the supply of land for private house building.

Mr. Latham: Will the right hon. Gentleman take some notice of that contact by at least meeting the federation's publicly expressed view that there will be a grave shortage of building land in three years unless the rate of DLT is reduced to a more sensible level?

Mr. Silkin: This, of course, is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General. I was interested to see that the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) himself lent his eloquent voice to the requirements of the federation on Monday. But I would remind him that in the October memorandum which the House-Builders Federation gave to the Department, to my right hon. Friend and myself, it said that it thought that development land tax should be graded and that only on sales of over


£100,000 should there be a rate of 80 per cent. If that were done, it said, it would make a significant difference to the supply of land. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend has graded it up to £150,000.

Mr. Skinner: Is not the truth of the matter that for many years we have heard constant cries from the Opposition about the supply of land drying up, and that whether we have had a Land Commission or a tax rate of 40 per cent. that has always been their bleat? Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the only answer is the compulsory purchase of land where there seems to be a shortage, if indeed there is a shortage, and to take away the speculation from land——

Mr. Speaker: Order——

Mr. Skinner: —as was recently done in a case——

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should resume his seat when I rise in my place?

Mr. Skinner: I was not taking too long.

Mr. Speaker: I know that I should have selective hearing, but I do not propose to put up with any remarks of that sort addressed to me.

Mr. Silkin: I think that my hon. Friend was making a valid point when he drew attention to the fact, perhaps at rather too great length, that the question of tax or lack of tax is not a decisive factor in the availability of land. Some of us remember that, when there was virtually no tax on land in the free market days of the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), the Conservative Government had to provide £80 million for the purchase of land for private housing, because there was a land shortage.

Mr. Sainsbury: Since the right hon. Gentleman apparently is prepared to listen a little to representations by those involved in producing homes or facilities for industry and commerce, why will he not make representations to his Treasury colleagues to extend indefinitely the concession for the first £150,000 of development gains?

Mr. Silkin: I do not think that it is for me to make representations to the

Treasury. I think that the Treasury is well aware of this situation anyway. But I think that the hon. Gentleman will come with me this far: if he really believes that a concession of this sort for three years will supply the land, it will do so much more quickly than if it were a concession for all time.

Local Government (Council Employees)

Mr. Michael Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received any representations from the TUC concerning the appointment of trade unionists to sit as councillors on local authorities.

Mr. John Silkin: My right hon. Friend received representations from the TUC last year proposing that representatives of employees should sit on all local authority committees. In this connection I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the statement of the Government's views on industrial democracy in the public sector, contained in the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department on 11th February 1976.

Mr. Marshall: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that a dangerous and important principle is at stake here and that the notion that nominated representatives should serve on elected bodies in local government, if carried through, would mean that he was likely to face nominated gauleiters sitting in his own Ministry and the Cabinet?

Mr. Silkin: I think that the hon. Member has gone a little way from his original Question. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Perhaps I should read the words. He asked me about the appointment of trade unionists to sit as councillors. In my reply I said that the TUC had asked that they should sit on local authority committees, and there is a difference. It was important to get that clear.
I take the substantive point. While we rightly believe that industrial democracy is vital and applies equally to local authorities as to any other public or private enterprise, the election of councillors is very much a matter for the electorate. For that reason, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department made his statement.

Mr. George Rodgers: Would my right hon. Friend agree that for many years local authorities with educational responsibilities have included teachers' union representatives and representatives of the Church in some of their deliberations and that this has been a valuable addition to local government work?

Mr. Silkin: I think that it has. Again, I would ask my hon. Friend to look at the reply to the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) and the distinction that I first drew, which, surprisingly, Conservative Members did not seem to understand.

Mr. Speed: We are in agreement on one thing at least, I think. Can the Minister make it clear that there is no question, so far as the Government or the Opposition are concerned, of people being nominated directly to main councils, since everyone in the country is represented by a councillor?

Mr. Silkin: Yes, I do not think that there is any question about that. I thought that I had made it clear.

Railway Policy

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on railway policy.

Mr. Marks: My right hon. Friend will be making a further statement at the conclusion of the transport policy review.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that continued uncertainty over transport policy is having a pretty savage effect on railwaymen's morale, which is already at an all-time low? As the railways are being starved of adequate investment, will not the Minister and his colleagues agree that it would be in the nation's interest to abandon the present and future nationalisation programme so that sufficient investment is made available for industries which are already nationalised?

Mr. Marks: Investment in the railways this year is greater than it has been in any year since 1965. I am aware that railwaymen are awaiting the transport policy review. There has not been a review since 1968. The purpose of the review is to do away with doubt.

Mr. James Lamond: Is my hon. Friend aware that account must be taken of the loss of freight traffic to the railways and that a thorough investigation should be held into why that has occurred? We should bear in mind that the inter-city service is now faster and in real terms cheaper than at any time in the last 30 years.

Mr. Marks: I have seen the figures to which my hon. Friend refers. At one time a journey from Aberdeen to London cost approximately 80 per cent. of a man's weekly wage. Now it costs about 45 per cent. We are very concerned about the future of the railways. I am sure that when the review is published and the consultations take place, it will prove to be a valuable addition to our knowledge of the railways and to the future of railways and transport generally.

Sir John Hall: The Minister has said that investment in the railways this year is greater than it has been in any year since 1965. Is that in real terms? To what extent does it fall below British Rail's requirements for the year?

Mr. Marks: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes". I cannot say exactly how it compares with British Rail's requirements. It is below the programme destined for the years ahead.

Mr. Jay: Will this review cover the method of estimating future road traffic volumes? Some of us have doubts about the practice of basing the case for extensive road-building schemes on guesses about road traffic 20 years hence.

Mr. Marks: Yes.

Mr. Neubert: Does the Minister concur with Sir Richard Marsh's statement yesterday that British Rail's prime objective should be to make the maximum amount of money without regard to the effect on the travelling public?

Mr. Marks: If that was what Sir Richard said, I should not agree with it. I had not realised that he said that. We appreciate that public transport generally needs some assistance if it is to cater for those who do not have access to cars.

Mr. Ogden: Will my hon. Friend do his best to ensure that when the transport policy review is published some


attempt will be made to make it available to Members of Parliament at least at the same time as it is made available to people in other professions outside the House?

Mr. Marks: The consultative paper will be published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Does not the Minister agree that the kind of unofficial action that we saw last week is sadly counter-productive? Will he confirm that such action can only reduce revenue, force passengers to make alternative arrangements and, therefore, make new cuts in services more rather than less likely?

Mr. Marks: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment dealt with this matter fully in his statement on this subject.

Gipsy Sites

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if the provision of additional authorised gipsy sites by local authorities is likely to be affected by cuts in public expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Silkin: All expenditure by authorities on locally determined schemes is likely to be affected by current and proposed restraints. In this situation it is for local authorities themselves to determine the priority to be accorded to any particular project.

Mr. Newens: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the present situation in which there are insufficient authorised sites to accommodate the existing gipsy population is quite appalling and that those sites should not be affected by cuts? Is it not a fact that gipsies are discriminated against, harassed and continually moved on? This is bad not only for them but for those authorities which have shown responsibility and provided sites for this section of our community who are, after all, citizens.

Mr. Silkin: The priority given to the use of locally determined schemes is a matter for the local authorities concerned. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is not the most popular expen-

diture for local authorities. In view of the difficulties of dealing with the gipsy question at present, I asked Mr. John Cripps, as I announced on 26th February, to initiate an inquiry into the working of the Act. Mr. Cripps will also examine the financial arrangements.

Mr. Wells: When can we expect a report? I realise that the inquiry has only just commenced, but this is a most urgent matter, particularly in the county of Kent. Kent leads the field and neighbouring counties, which do not perform so well, are very unpleasant neighbours for us. I hope that the Minister, as one of my constituents, will do his best for us.

Mr. Silkin: Much as I love Kent, I am the Minister for Planning and Local Government and there are other local authorities that are doing quite well in this area. Mr. Cripps hopes to have completed his inquiries relatively soon. That was why I asked for an inquiry rather than a working party or commission to be set up.

Mr. Rooker: Will my right hon. Friend write to Solihull District Council asking it to provide the site that it should have provided under the 1968 Act, which would obviate the need for Birmingham to provide additional sites?

Mr. Silkin: It is not for me to do anything about the Caravan Sites Act 1968. The onus rests upon the local authorities to carry out their duties. For that reason there is no possibility of my interfering unless I am asked for my advice.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, against the advice given to him by local authorities, he has not given certain parts of London exemption? Is that not an interference with local democracy?

Mr. Silkin: One of the troubles is that although the word "exemption" appears in the 1968 Act, no one has defined the circumstances in which exemption rather than designation can be given. The result is that neither I nor my predecessors, going right back to 1968, have been able to find a case where we could give unequivocal exemption.

Speed Limits

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on his future policy towards the 50 mph and 60 mph speed limit.

Mr. Marks: We shall review the speed limits before the present Order expires on 30th November next.

Mr. Knox: Will the Minister tell the House what estimates his Department has made of the fuel savings resulting from the speed limits? If there is no such estimate, or if it is very small, how can he justify the continuation of the limits?

Mr. Marks: The estimate was a saving of 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. of motor spirit during the year. It is difficult to say that that saving was entirely due to the imposition of speed limits, but that was not an entirely negligible factor. It means a saving of about £40 million a year.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will my hon. Friend not only consider the savings in fuel but tell the House if these speed limits have reduced the number of accidents? Will he also consider introducing a limit on the speed at which heavy transporters travel on motorways, because they rush along with dangerous loads and are becoming more and more of a problem?

Mr. Marks: Heavy transporters will be dealt with in the policy review. The figures for accidents are difficult to define because of other factors. In the first few months of 1975, the accidents rate per vehicle-mile compared with the corresponding period in 1973 was 15 per cent. lower on motorways and 16 per cent. lower on all-purpose roads subject to the reduced limits.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Surely it is quite wrong to continue using an emergency fuel-saving device in this way. Does not the Minister recognise that the plethora of speed limits causes confusion to the motorist, makes police enforcement even more difficult, and is, all told, a bad law?

Mr. Marks: Our last survey showed that about 80 per cent. of drivers were observing the limits before November. Before any future order is brought to the

House we shall have a further check on these figures.

Local Authority Housing

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new council houses he expects to be built in 1976 and 1977.

Mr. Terry Walker: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the present local authority housing figures; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Freeson: 134,000 new local authority dwellings were started and 130,000 completed in Great Britain in 1975. Starts were therefore up by 10 per cent., on 1974 and 54 per cent. on 1973, and completions by 26 per cent. and 47 per cent. respectively. I hope to maintain this encouraging revival.

Mr. Lawson: I wish that the Minister had actually answered my Question, particularly as Table 2.7 of the Public Expenditure White Paper shows quite clearly that the gross investment in new council housing is scheduled to fall in the coming year by about 3 per cent. However, now for my supplementary question: what is the average percentage of the current cost of a new council house that is covered by rent?

Mr. Freeson: I cannot give an exact percentage off the cuff, but I shall certainly check the figures and write to the hon. Gentleman in detail.

Mr. Walker: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the great need at present is for houses to rent? Will he do something about those local authorities which at present are reticent to build more houses for rent, and will he see that they are made aware that people need houses to live in?

Mr. Freeson: Yes. I certainly welcome my hon. Friend's support in seeking to get more houses built. I hear echoes which suggest that quite a number of Opposition Members would oppose any further expansion in house building by local authorities and would, indeed, seek a reduction. I ask my hon. Friend to let me have details of the particular local authority or authorities to which he is referring, and I shall do my best to contact them with a view to checking


what is going on and encouraging a bigger expansion of building in order to meet needs.
I should perhaps add that the series of visits that I am making around the country, area by area and region by region, is designed mainly to provide a means of getting larger programmes under way by detailed discussions with the local authorities concerned.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Is the Minister aware that if he knocked together the fat heads of the London dockland councils thousands of acres of land could be developed for housing without wasting public money by buying houses at Harrow and other outer London suburbs?

Mr. Freeson: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to debate municipalisation and social ownership, I am quite prepared to do so. The Question relates to new building. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that he was a member of the Government who set up the present structure for the future of dockland.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does the Minister accept that the further and desperately needed growth in council housing is inhibited by high rents, resulting mainly from heavy loan interest charges? Therefore, will he resist the cut of £310 million a year in the housing subsidy included in the public expenditure survey, because, contrary to what he said a few minutes ago, it is bound to affect the rate of house building?

Mr. Freeson: The answer to the question about the White Paper is "No". On the general point that my hon. Friend makes, there is no evidence to suggest that there is a slow-down in local authority building for the reasons that my hon. Friend has given. In fact, in the course of the very detailed discussions that I have been having month by month with local authority representatives—I shall have met practically every chairman and housing officer throughout England by the time these visits are completed—it has become clear that there is plenty of evidence to show the contrary.

Mr. Raison: Will the Minister now answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson)? With reference to the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) and my earlier question, will he

explain how the figure of £1,942 million on local government capital expenditure in the current year can possibly exclude any new building?

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman must be aware, as he has been told many times, that there is no restraint whatsoever——

Mr. Raison: Answer the question.

Mr. Freeson: —on new building. The figures quoted in the White Paper for investment in new building—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to listen to the answer to his question. The figures quoted in the White Paper for investment in new construction are forecast. They are not cash limits I should like to know from the hon. Gentleman in due course whether it is his wish to see a reduction in new council house building or a further increase. I should like to make it perfectly clear to him and to his hon. Friends that I expect the figures for 1976 to be in line with those for 1975.

Mr. Raison: In his earlier reply to me the hon. Gentleman said that the figures for local government capital expenditure excluded all new council building. He was obviously wrong. Will he now withdraw?

Mr. Freeson: As a matter of fact, the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that while we have been pursuing this question——

Mr. Lawson: Answer the question.

Mr. Freeson: —I have had the point checked. The reference in the White Paper does not touch the point that the hon. Gentleman was putting to me. I suggest that he reads the table again.

Empty Properties

Mr. Budgen: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will send out a circular to local authorities asking them to compile a comprehensive list of all empty properties in whatever condition which are in their ownership.

Mr. Freeson: No, Sir; but we will be issuing a circular on the better use of housing stock soon and this will cover matters concerning empty properties, in both the public and private sectors.

Mr. Budgen: Does the Minister agree that the right thing to do would be to stop taking more previously privately-owned houses into what he calls "social ownership" and to allow landlords to be freer of the suffocating restrictions of the Rent Acts?

Mr. Freeson: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will wish to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in the debate that is to follow. However, the answer to his question in the meantime is "No". We do not intend to close down our municipalisation programme or the programme for the purchase of houses by housing associations to bring them into the public sector.

Mrs. Millie Miller: In spite of his reply to the original Question, will my hon. Friend consider including columns in the statistics regularly returned by local authorities to his Department to show vacant properties in both the public and private sectors to enable local authorities to plan their programmes of acquisition according to current statistics? My hon. Friend may not be aware that at present only 15 of the 32 London boroughs—this is in the greatest stress area of the country—are keeping regular records in this respect.

Mr. Freeson: I am not sure that I shall be seeking to get the kind of statistics to which my hon. Friend has referred in precisely the form that she seems to be suggesting, but the possibility of getting a methodical follow-through of empty properties—techniques are being developed by a number of authorities—is in our minds, and we are considering it in the preparation of the circular to which I have just referred.

Mr. Stephen Ross: May I speak in support of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller) and ask that the Minister does as the hon. Lady has asked? Further, may I say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]. I apologise. I shall start again.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough: I know that he will ask a question.

Mr. Ross: May I ask the Minister whether these figures can be published? Many of us are under the impression that local authorities are sitting on a great

many empty properties and it is time that they put their own house in order.

Mr. Freeson: I propose to touch on this question if the matter is pursued further in the debate to follow later this afternoon. Meanwhile, I repeat what my right hon. Friend and I have said on a number of occasions in the past: it is quite incorrect to say that local authorities in general—although there are exceptions—are sitting on a large and undue number of empty properties. The biggest problem in this matter lies, if anywhere, in the private sector, not the public.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that a more serious problem is the large number of empty privately-owned houses, most of them in terraced blocks, which are deteriorating either because there are no mortgages available for that type of property or because they need to be taken over by local authorities?

Mr. Freeson: In areas where that is the position and properties are standing empty for a long time and therefore deteriorating, I should welcome initiatives by local authorities to bring such properties into public ownership. They could then be repaired, brought up to a decent state and occupied by families in need. This is the basic reason for our municipalisation policy.

National Freight Corporation

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what he now expects to be the loss of the National Freight Corporation for 1975–76.

Mr. Crosland: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) on 21st January 1976.

Mr. Ridley: That does not answer the Question. Is the Secretary of State aware that it is estimated by some to be in the region of £30 million? Why is it that public enterprise always loses money, and what does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about it?

Mr. Crosland: The figure has not been estimated. It has already been announced that the loss for 1975 will be about £30 million. As the Minister for Transport has already told the House, a firm of


Consultants has been appointed to report by the end of April on the National Freight Corporation. In addition, the transport policy review document, to be published next month, will suggest a number of options for the future of the NFC.

Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the losses could be cut considerably if the NFC were integrated with the railway network to create an integrated freight transport system? Does he not agree that this would be ideal if such an organisation came under a chairman elected by the workers in the NFC rather than under an appointed political whiz kid or retired general?

Mr. Crosland: I have no intention of appointing retired generals to manage any part of the transport system. The question of whether the NFC should come back into British Rail has been much discussed over recent months. It will be raised in detail in the consultative document and we shall seek opinions on the matter. Whether we should revert to the situation which existed a few years ago is an open question.

Mr. Fry: May I be of slight assistance to the right hon. Gentleman now, even if I can be of no use to him next week? Would he like to tell his hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) that one of the reasons the NFC has made severe losses was the original commitment to British Rail, and that it is having to divert resources to road to reach even the present deplorable figures? There is criticism because freight is being transferred from road transport to the railways.

Mr. Crosland: I am distressed to hear that the hon. Gentleman will give me no help next week. For all I know, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) may not give me any help either—it seems unlikely. The difficulties of the NFC and British Rail freight as a whole in the last 12 months have deep-seated causes, including that of the economic recession. I am extremely dissatisfied with the present state of rail freight, but I strongly believe that neither rail nor road freight should be subsidised by the taxpayer.

Mr. Les Huckfield: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many workers in the NFC are worried about its rôle? Is he

satisfied that it is still playing its rôle as an agent of co-ordination or integration, or does he want it to go on being the sponsor of competition?

Mr. Crosland: I am not satisfied with the position as a whole. My hon. Friend was chairman of the Socialist Commentary Group which produced an authoritative report and he will agree with me, having written part of that report, that the question of how NFC should operate is difficult and complicated. It is a matter on which I want to have the greatest possible consultation in the months ahead.

Sewage Disposal

Mr. Wells: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take urgent steps to provide for equality of treatment between one class of ratepayer and another in the matter of sewage disposal by cesspool, septic tank or main drainage and in paying for general amenities such as flood and coast protection.

Mr. John Silkin: Cesspool emptying is the responsibility of local authorities; sewerage and sewage disposal are the responsibility of water authorities. Any change in the allocation of responsibilities between authorities needs the most careful consideration. The issues will be raised in the forthcoming consultation paper on the review of the water industry. Flood and coast protection are part of land drainage, which is financed by a precept on the rates.

Mr. Wells: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of a recent case in the House of Lords, many people with septic tanks and cesspools are currently paying little towards flood relief? Is he also aware that such people are now being asked for exorbitant emptying charges by many local authorities? Does he not agree that equity should be achieved between one class and another? It is the poorest people who frequently have sealed tanks, which will overflow if they are not emptied and will cause a health hazard. It is the less-well-off families where there are many in a household and more water flowing through the system, which caused——

Mr. Speaker: That is an inordinately long question.

Mr. Silkin: The emptying of cesspools is often more expensive than installing main drainage and it is therefore natural that local authorities should seek to make up the difference, otherwise they would be subsidising the service. The general question is important. We could not deal with it in the Water Charges Bill, which was concerned with the House of Lords decision in the Daymond case. The issue will figure strongly in the consultation document to be issued tomorrow and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us many pages of recommendations about it.

Mr. Spearing: The Water Act gives powers for the compulsory metering of domestic water supplies. Does the document to be published tomorrow confirm that, or are the Government proposing to eliminate that provision from the Act?

Mr. Silkin: The House appears to be anxious to have a sneak preview of the document. It would be better to wait until we get the document tomorrow so that everyone can look at it calmly and carefully and give the benefit of his advice.

Mr. Costain: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those living in small cottages are worried because they think that they may have to pay £250 a year to have their cesspools emptied? That could lead to very serious pollution.

Mr. Silkin: I am sure that we shall welcome, as always, the hon. Gentleman's observations on the document when it is published tomorrow. I agree that it is an expensive matter. It is much more expensive to empty cesspools than to deal with main drainage.

Beverley South-West Bypass

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the completion of the Beverley South-West bypass.

Mr. Marks: An interim decision letter was issued on 23rd February. This gave statutory objectors a period of 21 days in which to make written representations or to ask for the inquiry to be reopened.

Mr. Wall: Is the Minister aware that this road was planned over 30 years ago and that therefore this last-minute delay is particularly exasperating? Does he

agree that there is a need to provide for the extra traffic generated by the Humber Bridge? Can he say when the work is likely to start?

Mr. Marks: We have to deal with the objections and the information we have received. Construction will proceed as planned within the financial constraints obtaining at the time when the scheme is due to begin. It is hoped that work will start at the end of 1977.

Local Authorities (Remuneration of Members)

Dr. Edmund Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to make any changes in respect of the remuneration of members of principal local authorities.

Mr. John Silkin: Matters relating to members' allowances are under consideration and my right hon. Friend will make a statement as soon as he is in a position to do so.

Dr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that since local government reorganisation it has become clear that for members of county councils and metropolitan district councils to perform their duties effectively they need to be full-time representatives and should be remunerated on that basis?

Mr. Silkin: The difficulties are such—my hon. Friend has mentioned one—that we need to take quite a long look. I believe that we are right to take that view. I should not want to come up with a quick answer, bearing in mind the various difficulties. In many cases councillors are overworked and the allowances are inadequate. I accept that there are a few examples where perhaps the allowances are rather too high.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will the right Gentleman confirm that for some time his right hon. Friend has had a report in his possession following an investigation of this subject? When will that report be allowed to see the light of day?

Mr. Silkin: As the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, a survey was made. We hope to be able to make an announcement as soon as possible. However, the hon. Gentleman knows from his experience in local government that this is a


terribly complicated matter. It is as well to come up with the right answer rather than a hurried answer.

NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT)

The Secretary of State for Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Shore): I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement on the national newspaper industry. The Interim Report on the national newspaper industry by the Royal Commission on the Press has been presented to the House and is published today.
As the House will know, the Government asked the Royal Commission last September for a report in view of the urgent problems facing Fleet Street. In recent months, management and unions have been working together to reach a comprehensive agreement on modern manning levels and technology. The Report considers that the rapid collective implementation of such an agreement is essential. The Government recognise the importance of such a coordinated approach.
To achieve the breakthrough needed, very substantial expenditure will be involved over a period of about four years. It will mean major capital investment in new equipment and financing the costs of redundancies, following consequent demanning and some rationalisation of Fleet Street's floating labour force. To this would have to be added the cost of associated improved pension schemes. In exchange, there will be large offsetting savings. The Royal Commission takes the view that a general subsidy for the Press is unnecessary and unjustified and can be avoided by the introduction of a scheme for new equipment and agreed voluntary redundancies on the right terms. Nor does it believe that the industry would welcome subsidies on this basis. The Government agree.
The Royal Commission hazards outline figures for costs and savings of £50 million to £55 million in respect of capital investment and demanning costs and of £35 million per annum in respect of economies. In fact—and I am sure the Commission would be the first to agree—it is not possible to predict either figure with confidence now. Before

anyone can get the measure of what is involved, it is essential to know from the joint union-management team what are its agreed manning levels and what are the specific compensatory payments to be associated with them. Although the intention is that these will be applied on a standard basis throughout Fleet Street. it will still be necessary for each house to work out its agreed consequentials in respect of the individual positions, which vary very widely.
The key to the Royal Commission's proposals is that any individual house participating in this collective scheme shall be able, within a relatively short time, to finance its costs out of its savings. This means that a high proportion of them should be able to secure necessary loan finance from the private sector. It adds that there may be cases where a house could achieve these valuable offsetting economies in the medium term but meanwhile has difficulties in meeting the normal commercial requirements. The Royal Commission proposes that such loans should be made available from public sources.
The Government recognise that Fleet Street now has an opportunity of taking bold collective action to deal with its central problems. There are however a number of important issues for decision; particularly in the present economic climate, all concerned will need firmer estimates of the costs and savings involved.
We shall be inviting the Fleet Street committee to tell us by the end of June what specific demanning and compensation figures it is agreed upon; and by the end of July we shall ask indivdual houses to submit similiarly agreed figures of the consequentials in terms of costs and savings for their own positions. Once supplied with such basic arithmetic, the Government will consider urgently and constructively what rôle they could most usefully play.
I am sure the House will wish to join me in thanking the Royal Commission for the serious and constructive Report it has submitted.

Mr. Higgins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends regard a strong, diversified and viable free Press as of vital importance in our democracy? My right hon. Friend


the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) has already expressed views on the proposals of the Secretary of State for Employment and the impact that they will have. I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman some specific questions about the Report to which he has referred, but he will realise that it is difficult to react immediately to a 112-page Report and a three-page statement of such complexity.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we take the view that this is par excellence not an industry in which a general Government subsidy or a lame-duck approach is appropriate? On the contrary, it is an industry in which technological advance and its exploitation is essential. We must ensure that restrictive trade practices do not create higher and higher monopoly pay in a smaller and smaller market.
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the proposals in the Report suggest that certain carrots, if I may put it in that way, should be given to the industry. Will he express a view on the reservations that have been expressed by Mr. Ian Richardson about that? Is it not a little curious that the suggestion should be made that the funds should come from Finance for Industry so as to remove the matter from the political arena, bearing in mind that the Government are quite closely in co-operation with Finance for Industry?
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is right that we should proceed, if possible, by consensus. I ask him to ensure that the House has an opportunity to debate this matter, and especially whether there is a need for assistance of the sort to which he has referred. Will he also ensure that two loose ends are tied up—namely, cross-subsidisation of advertising revenue and the position of the economics of the provincial Press—and that information is made available before we reach a firm position on the interim Report?

Mr. Shore: We are all concerned to preserve a strong, free and diversified Press. Indeed, that was almost within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission when it was set up.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we stand by what we have said and that which the Royal Commission has emphasised—namely, that we would be

opposed to any general Government subsidy to the Press. I do not wish to go beyond my statement in considering any of the more detailed proposals put forward by the Royal Commission, whether in the majority Report or in the minority Addendum, except to say that we should need an awful lot of persuading and that we should approach any proposal of that kind in a critical frame of mind. At the right time we shall consider urgently and constructively the rôle that the Government can play, but, as I have emphasised, there is a great deal of arithmetic still to be done.
It is certainly desirable that we proceed by consensus. The hon. Gentleman will realise that it is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to deal with arrangements for a debate. However, I think I can tell him that most of the House would welcome the opportunity at some stage to debate the general question of the Press and the interim Report. Finally, I shall see what information can be made available about the provincial Press. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the comments made about it in the interim Report.

Mr. Grimond: First, I declare an interest. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that if assistance is offered to the Press it will not result in some of the more efficient sectors of the Press being penalised? Secondly, although we are accustomed to speaking of Fleet Street as the Press, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that a great deal of the Press is situated outside Fleet Street? Has he anything further to say about the interim proposals for the provincial Press, which is of the greatest importance?

Mr. Shore: The general agreement was that the most critical area of the Press was Fleet Street, although I would associate Manchester with Fleet Street, as did the Royal Commission. Therefore, Fleet Street should be the focus of the interim Report of the Royal Commission. It would be wrong to penalise efficient parts of the Press. When the arithmetic is done by the joint committee we shall have a clearer picture as to who is efficient and who is not.

Mr. Corbett: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the statement made a few


weeks ago by the joint committee representing employers and unions on the way in which they intend to proceed with this difficult and hazardous exercise of redundancy and re-equipment in the national Press? Will he give a categoric assurance that there is no question of providing loans for either purpose unless and until there has been agreement between individual managements and unions?

Mr. Shore: I willingly echo my hon. Friend's sentiments about the helpful and forward-looking approach of unions and management in their submissions to the Royal Commission, the contents of which are printed in Appendix B. It is an invaluable and indispensable step forward. I assure my hon. Friend that we have no intention of making available loans under the Royal Commission proposals unless and until agreements are reached—agreements of the detailed kind envisaged by the Royal Commission both at Fleet Street level and at house level, as indicated in the timetable which I have suggested.

Mr. Neubert: What indications does the Secretary of State have that these proposals are likely to be acceptable to the printing unions, which have been among the most militant defenders of overmanning?

Mr. Shore: The most encouraging feature of the discussions which have taken place so far has been the full co-operation of the printing unions—and indeed the leading part taken by them—in putting forward outline proposals which have so greatly helped the Royal Commission in producing its Report.

Mr. Whitehead: Will my right hon. Friend accept that probably on both sides of the House there is a welcome for the Royal Commission's viewpoint that there should be no general subsidy to the Press? In the forthcoming discussions will he make clear to both sides of the industry when they come forward to the Government with their proposals that we are committed to a plural Press, which means the existence of as many outlets as possible? Will he also make clear that that, in turn, means that the Government will set their face against a further concentration of ownership?

Mr. Shore: The Royal Commission made clear in its proposals that it had those considerations in mind and that it is hostile to mergers of both titles and

houses. I reiterate that we have no intention of supporting any scheme for general subsidy.

Mr. Younger: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that in any assessment of the Press, it is important to think of the future as well as of the past? Does he not agree that it would be a poor bargain if we were to pay through the nose to liquidate the old manning levels in order to fix new ones which will remain set until a further crisis hits the Press? Will he bear that point in mind?

Mr. Shore: Yes. One part of the Royal Commission's recommendations is concerned with the introduction of new technology. Agreements on appropriate manning scales for the new technology are highly relevant to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Jay: Does the Secretary of State also agree that any proposal for a general subsidy would involve Governments in an intolerable dilemma in discriminating between one project and another, whether new or old?

Mr. Shore: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. We are anxious to avoid—and I am sure that this applies to anybody else—being placed in that unenviable position.

Mr. McCrindle: As there appears to be a section dealing with London evening newspapers, will the Secretary of State say whether the Royal Commission reached the conclusion that the industry will be able to sustain only one London evening newspaper?

Mr. Shore: I am sure that the Royal Commission has not committed itself to such a view. Indeed, it would have been surprising if it had done so.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend appreciate that there are at least a few Labour Members who do not accept the nonsense that we have a pluralist or diversified Press? We take the view that it is an Establishment Press and that it is wrong for ordinary workers to pay the bulk of their taxes to prop up this Establishment Press—a Press which at times, almost in unison, attacks those very workers for having the audacity to fight for better conditions and wages.

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend must not confuse the term "pluralist Press"—we


have a number of national newspapers in this country, probably rather more than possessed by other countries where the newspapers are different in style and in affiliations—with the separate and additional question whether we have the most satisfactory Press, or indeed a satisfactory Press. The full Report of the Royal Commission at a later stage may give us a far deeper and more searching analysis of the Press in this country and may possibly suggest changes for the future that may be either inevitable or desirable.

Mr. English: Judging by the chorus of sycophantic noises, one would think that we were not subsidising the Press at all. Is the Secretary of State aware that some of us think that provincial papers, which make more money than national newspapers, may be more efficient than is the over-centralised London Press, and that we do not necessarily believe in any subsidy to the Press at all? If that Press were efficient, it could use its own money and provide for its needs. Why should we subsidise millionaire newspaper proprietors?

Mr. Shore: There is no proposal for any general subsidy to the Press. What is being discussed is whether an agreed scheme can be worked out to enable necessary and overdue changes to take place—a scheme that would depend on satisfactory terms in respect of the borrowing and repayment of money

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will the Secretary of State address himself to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) about future technology? Since there is now chronic overmanning, will he try to ensure that this does not arise again in the future?

Mr. Shore: I have already said that in the Royal Commission's proposals on the introduction of new technology, which it was much concerned to bring about, the appropriate manning levels for the new technology will be the subject of joint discussions in the different forums I have mentioned.

Mr. Speaker: I shall call two quick supplementary questions. We have a great deal of business before us.

Mr. Madden: In considering any financial arrangements, will the Secretary of

State take full account of the diversification of many newspaper publishing companies into activities as diverse as plastics and North Sea oil? On the question of manning levels, will he also take account of the incompetent managements that prevail in so many newspaper offices? On the question of redundancies——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to complete his supplementary question, but will he bear in mind what I said?

Mr. Madden: In considering redundancies, will the Secretary of State set up a monitoring arrangement to ensure that those redundancies are carried out on an agreed basis?

Mr. Shore: That is one of the proposals in the interim Report—namely, that agreements should be reached on manning and other arrangements and that there should also be careful monitoring of progress made towards the achievement of various targets.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when some of us on this side of the House suggested last year that a Royal Commission should be set up to look into the newspaper industry, there was considerable opposition from the Conservative Party? Does not this interim Report justify the setting up of the Commission? When may we expect a final Report dealing with the concentration of ownership of the Press in this country?

Mr. Shore: I am sure that it was necessary to set up the Royal Commission. It has enabled us to have this interim Report in what has been a very difficult financial period for the Press. Of course there are many other questions affecting the Press which are the subject of the wider terms of reference of the Royal Commission. I very much hope that we shall get the full Report some time next year.

MOZAMBIQUE

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,


the decision of Her Majesty's Government to support the draft resolution of the Security Council on Mozambique tabled at the United Nations by Her Majesty's Government's representative yesterday.
It is a specific matter because it involves the immediate expenditure of sums of the order of £15 million to £20 million and it could be an open-ended commitment for very much more. It is also specific because it involves a major payment across the exchanges and because the whole sum, in the present economic circumstances of this country, will have to be borrowed.
It is important because the action involves the British Government making a large payment to a Government who, under a decree published in Mozambique on 7th February, expropriated British property without compensation. It is also important because it involves the British Government helping to finance a regime which has declared publicly its intention to cause economic chaos in Rhodesia and, if necessary, to bring terrorist war to a British territory. It is important because it brings into question the credibility of the Government's posture in international affairs generally and African affairs in particular. It is important because of the state of chaos in Mozambique and because it is almost certain that no effective control can be exercised over the expenditure of this money.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd) wishes to make his case in this way, I claim the right to reply. He is not making an application under Standing Order No. 9. He is making an attack on the Government.

Mr. Speaker: It is always a fine point whether an hon. Member is arguing his case or submitting an application under Standing Order No. 9. The hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd) could see that I was restless. I hope that he will realise that he must not argue his case now. He may only give reasons why he believes that this subject should have precedence over the business of the day.

Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your difficulty. I have only two more criteria of importance to put before the House.
The Government's decision will exacerbate the situation in Rhodesia and have exactly the opposite effect to that which the Government and many hon. Members on both sides desire.
Finally, this House should have the earliest possible opportunity to judge what is, in the opinion of many hon. Members and many of my constituents, the most catastrophic foreign policy decision since Chamberlain went to Munich.

An hon. Member: You are a good friend of Ian Smith.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should realise that all comments are automatically addressed to the Chair. Hon. Members must not describe me as a friend of anyone.
The hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision of Her Majesty's Government to support the draft resolution of the Security Council on Mozambique tabled at the United Nations by Her Majesty's Government's representative yesterday.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reason for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to the representations the hon. Gentleman has made, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and that therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 2nd APRIL

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Michael Neubert

Dr. Edmund Marshall

Mr. Tony Durant

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day, as soon as the House has entered upon the Business of Supply, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the questions which under the provisions of paragraph (11) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply) he is directed to put at Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Snape.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Speaker: In order to save the time of the House, unless there is objection, I propose to put the Question on these three motions together.

Ordered,
That the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) Regulations 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Electricity Boards (Rateable Values) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Gas Hereditaments (Rateable Values) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c—[Mr. Snape.]

COAL INDUSTRY (AMENDMENT)

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the licensing of privately-owned coal mines.
The history of this matter is that the 1946 Act transferred the ownership of all coal mines to the National Coal Board and allowed persons to work coal mines only by licence from the NCB. At that time there were about 480 private coal mines, but by 1964 production had fallen from 2 million tons to 1·4 million tons. Now it is in the region of 600,000 tons and the labour force employed in private coal mines totals about 1,600 people.
The power to license these mines rests with the National Coal Board. It is a curious idea that the private mines' chief competitor should be he who issues licences.
Furthermore, the National Coal Board has the power to charge rent or royalties on coal worked in privately-owned mines and the power to alter or revoke a licence or impose conditions on a licence and so to order the affairs of privately-owned coal mines that they cannot possibly compete on fair terms.
The Bill I seek leave to bring in would alter this situation so that the power to license mines would be in the hands of the Government. The Bill provides that a Government should refuse a licence only on the grounds of safety or health in the operation of the mines and should not seek to revoke a licence on the grounds of preventing or frustrating competition.
It is the aspect of monopoly which prompts me to seek leave to bring in this Bill. The Minister of Fuel and Power who brought in the 1946 Act was asked by a member of the then Cabinet whether a special clause should be inserted to confirm the National Coal Board's monopoly position.
It has always seemed to me rather curious about the Labour Party that it and the trade unions, which so often run with it, have railed against monopoly throughout their history, yet when they have nationalised industries they have instituted open monopoly. They have seen


a virtue in giving State industries a monopoly which I think the whole House would agree is undesirable in the private sector. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) just now accused the Press of being a monopoly, yet no doubt he will seek to oppose my request to open up a monopoly in the public sector.
We have monopolies in postal services, telephone services, steel, gas and medicine—in whole areas of our economy. We have the spectacle of the Government seeking to enforce monopoly—and where it is not yet total monopoly, to make it so—in health and education and in the case of Laker Airways.
All this makes people ask "Why does this State industry need to be bolstered by monopoly powers? Is it because it is so inefficient? Are the Government so ashamed of its performance that they wish to conceal its weaknesses by preventing competition?" It must be the weakest thing that could be done by a Socialist Government to insist on a statutory monopoly in any of these sectors, but particularly in coal mining, where there is no utility content in the work done by the National Coal Board, because in effect it declares that the Government have no confidence in the efficiency of these industries, that they cannot be sure that they can compete and, therefore, that the Government must necessarily suppress all competition.
Why should not people be allowed to dig coal in this country? This island is made of coal and is surrounded by fish. But its citizens are not allowed to dig coal. Why not? Why should not our citizens be allowed to catch fish as long as the Government do not nationalise fishing? If a citizen wished to do so, it would be to the benefit of the country that he should be allowed to open and run coal mines on any basis he liked.
The customers of the coal industry would benefit from alternative sources of supply. Why should they be denied the opportunity of getting coal from other than the NCB? I see every advantage in alternative sources of supply. I see every advantage in competition in the provision of coal. Why should it not be allowed?
Most important of all is the effect of the situation upon the coal industry itself. Nothing so weakens the spirit of initiative and enterprise of people as belonging to a monopoly, because it seems to stretch for far ahead, with the right to go on doing whatever one has been doing without facing realities and economic changes where they are necessary.
I shall illustrate what I mean. The possibility of paying pitmen vast sums more through vastly greater productivity in the coal mines is denied by insisting that they cannot opt out of the system. The labour relations of the coal mines are not such that one would advocate having a unit of 250,000 people. It is impossible to communicate, to participate, in a unit of that size. We have shown how the wages are determined by politics, how the National Union of Mineworkers becomes the bully boy of the industry and how the workers are denied the opportunity to better themselves through higher productivity.
We hear and will hear more from the Labour Party about worker participation. Some absurd White Paper or Green Paper—perhaps even a Bill—will be produced. But the way to achieve worker participation in the coal industry is to give the pits to the miners. Let them run their own pits and double or quadruple their wages, if they can, by their own efforts. Let them be responsible for their own capital and their own investment. That is the way to get participation, to get profit-sharing and to get that spirit of enterprise which is so lacking in our public sector.
Labour Members may laugh about this. They may think that they are the masters now. But they can look at the declining industrial performance of the country. It is falling back to being a country of low wages, low productivity and industrial backwardness. If they do not soon take the point that somewhere along the road they have to give people a little bit of participation, a little bit of profit-sharing and responsibility for the results of their own actions, they will reduce us to the state of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia or some other grim, grey, Communist satellite. That is where hon. Members opposite are bringing us, so I ask the House to give me leave to bring in the Bill.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I oppose granting the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) leave to bring in the Bill.
The hon. Member referred to "bully boys" in the trade unions, yet his current Leader is running around the country trying to woo the trade unions in order to gather a few votes in whatever elections may ensue, either locally or in parliamentary by-elections.
It is all rather ironic, since the hon. Member comes from a coal-mining family. [HON. MEMBERS: "Coal-owning."] When I say "coal-mining family" I use the term in its broadest possible sense. I was not, I hope, giving any indication that the hon. Gentleman ever got down a coal mine and dirtied his hands, or got to the pit face and dug out the coal. I think that we should pay some attention, however, to the rôle that the hon. Gentleman's family played in the coal industry before it was nationalised. Like many other large coal-owning families, it was very much concerned with the profit motive in the coal mines and was to some extent extremely successful until it found that coal production was not yielding the bonanza that it used to yield.
The experience of the coal industry under private ownership caused the Labour Party at the time—and it could be argued that most people in Parliament agreed—to come to the view that, if we were to sustain a coal industry for the nation in order to produce the coal so badly needed, certainly after the war, to the extent of 250 million tons, it had to be done on a planned basis. Indeed, Tories, Liberals and countless other types in this place and outside it were of the joint view that it had to be done on a planned basis. Thus, nationalisation of the Morrisonian type was applied to the coal industry. It can be argued now that that system is not the right kind for a planned coal industry, but in saying that we certainly could not go back to the system promulgated by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: My hon. Friend wants to give the mines back to the miners.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) suggests from a sitting position that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury is concerned about giving the mines back to the miners. I remind the hon. Member for Blaby that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury was really saying something entirely different. He was concerned about allowing the winds of competition and free enterprise to blow across the coal industry so that other people and not those actually digging the coal could make money. Let us have none of this nonsense. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury wanted to embellish his argument and make it appear to be palatable, perhaps, to some of my hon. Friends by referring to the miners. I am certain that it will not appear palatable. We have been through that experience.
When the hon. Gentleman's family and others like them were involved in running the coal mines, they paid more attention to the survival of ponies at £80 a time than to men injured underneath the ground. They knew then that they could replace any one of those men killed in the coal mines without any cost whatsoever, but it cost £80 to replace a pony. That was the value they put upon human life for many years throughout the coal industry. Therefore, we shall have none of this nonsense.
There are some privately-licensed mines in the great British coalfields at the present time. As the hon. Gentleman indicated, they employ about 1,600 men. They are fast falling because of the standards laid down in this House as a result of the efforts of the National Union of Mineworkers and other unions associated with the coal industry. Those who have tried to make a few bob out of these ramshackle private mines have in the main found it increasingly more difficult to do so because of the standards laid down. They cannot keep up with the standards to which they are expected to adhere rigidly in this extremely dangerous industry.
For those reasons and a multitude of others, I oppose the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select

Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 205.

Division No. 89.]
AYES
[4.13 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Mudd, David


Alison, Michael
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Neave, Airey


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Grist, Ian
Nelson, Anthony


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hall, Sir John
Neubert, Michael


Awdry, Daniel
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Onslow, Cranley


Banks, Robert
Hannam, John
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Bell, Ronald
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Parkinson, Cecil


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Higgins, Terence L.
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Benyon, W.
Holland, Philip
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hordern, Peter
Raison, Timothy


Biggs-Davison, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Renten, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Blaker, Peter
Hunt, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hurd, Douglas
Ridsdale, Julian


Bottomley, Peter
James, David
Rifkind, Malcolm


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd … W'df'd)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Kershaw, Anthony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buck, Antony
Kilfedder, James
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Budgen, Nick
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Burden, F. A.
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Sainsbury, Tim


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Lamont, Norman
Scott, Nicholas


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Lane, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shepherd, Colin


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Sims, Roger


Clegg, Walter
Lawrence, Ivan
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cockcroft, John
Lawson, Nigel
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sproat, lain


Cope, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cordle, John H.
Lloyd, Ian
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Corrie, John
Loveridge, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Costain, A. P.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Critchley, Julian
McCrindle, Robert
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Macfarlane, Neil
Tebbit, Norman


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Durant, Tony
Marten, Neil
Wakeham, John


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Mather, Carol
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Maude, Angus
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Elliott, Sir William
Mawby, Ray
Wall, Patrick


Eyre, Reginald
Mayhew, Patrick
Walters, Dennis


Fairgrieve, Russell
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Farr, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Weatherill, Bernard


Fell, Anthony
Mills, Peter
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wiggin, Jerry


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Molyneaux, James
Winterton, Nicholas


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Monro, Hector
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Montgomery, Fergus
Younger, Hon George


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Moore, John (Croydon C)



Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gllmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Morgan, Geraint
Mr. Ian Gow and


Glyn, Dr Alan
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Mr. Nicholas Ridley.


Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)



NOES


Abse, Leo
Canavan, Dennis
Delargy, Hugh


Allaun, Frank
Cant, R. B.
Dempsey, James


Archer, Peter
Carter, Ray
Dormand, J. D.


Armstrong, Ernest
Clemitson, Ivor
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Ashley, Jack
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Dunn, James A.


Ashton, Joe
Cohen, Stanley
Eadie, Alex


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Coleman, Donald
Edge, Geoff


Atkinson, Norman
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Corbett, Robin
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
English. Michael


Bates, Alf
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Bean, R. E.
Crawford, Douglas
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Beith, A. J.
Crawshaw, Richard
Evans, loan (Abordare)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cryer, Bob
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Bishop, E. S.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Boardman, H.
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Davidson, Arthur
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Buchan, Norman
Deakins, Eric
Forrester, John


Buchanan, Richard
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Freeson, Reginald


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Freud, Clement




Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Madden, Max
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Magee, Bryan
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Golding, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Silverman, Julius


Gould, Bryan
Marks, Kenneth
Skinner, Dennis


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marquand, David
Small, William


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Snape, Peter


Hardy, Peter
Maynard, Miss Joan
Spearing, Nigel


Harper, Joseph
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mendelson, John
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Heffer, Eric S.
Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Hooley, Frank
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Stoddart, David


Horam, John
Molloy, William
Strang, Gavin


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Moonman, Eric
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Huckfield, Les
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tierney, Sydney


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Newens, Stanley
Tinn, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Oakes, Gordon
Tomilnson, John


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric
Torney, Tom


Hunter, Adam
Ovenden, John
Tuck, Raphael


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Pardoe, John
Urwin, T. W.


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Park, George
Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)


Janner, Greville
Parker, John
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Parry, Robert
Ward, Michael


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Pavitt, Laurie
Watkins, David


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pendry, Tom
Watkinson, John


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Penhaligon, David
Watt, Hamish


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Perry, Ernest
Wellbeloved, James


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Welsh, Andrew


Kelley, Richard
Prescott, John
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Kilroy-Sllk, Robert
Price, William (Rugby)
Whitehead, Phillip


Kinnock, Neil
Radice, Giles
Whitlock, William


Lambie, David
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Wigley, Dafydd


Lamborn, Harry
Reid, George
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Lamond, James
Richardson, Miss Jo
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Sir Thomas


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lipton, Marcus
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Loyden, Eddie
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Luard, Evan
Rooker, J. W.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Roper, John
Woodall, Alec


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Woof, Robert


McCartney, Hugh
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


McElhone, Frank
Rowlands, Ted
Young, David (Bolton E)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Sandelson, Neville



Mackenzie, Gregor
Sedgemore, Brian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mackintosh, John P.
Selby, Harry
Mr. Gwilyn Roberts and


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)
Mr. Edwin Wainwright.


McNamara, Kevin
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Question accordingly negatived.

SUPPLY

[12TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed to put at Ten o'clock by paragraph (11) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply).

DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1976–77 (NAVY), VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1977 a number not exceeding 78,000 Officers, Ratings and Royal Marines be maintained for Naval Service.—[Mr. Robert Sheldon.]

DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1976–77 (ARMY), VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1977 a number not exceeding 189,500 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 65,000 for the Regular Reserve, a number not exceeding 86,500 for the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve and a number not exceeding 10,000 for the Ulster Defence Regiment.—[Mr. Robert Sheldon.]

DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1976–77 (AIR), VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1977 a number not exceeding 93,800 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 10,600 for the Royal Air Force Reserve and a number not exceeding 400 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.—[Mr. Robert Sheldon.]

CIVIL AND DEFENCE ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1975–76

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a further Supplementary sum not exceeding £951,518,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1976, for expenditure on Civil and Defence Services, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 173, 174, 238 and 239.—[Mr. Robert Sheldon.]

Mr. John Pardoe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is this motion debatable?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 20.

Division No. 90.]
AYES
14.26 p.m.


Archer, Peter
Corbett, Robin
Gould, Bryan


Armstrong, Ernest
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Gourlay, Harry


Ashley, Jack
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Ashton, Joe
Cryer, Bob
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Atkinson, Norman
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hardy, Peter


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davidson, Arthur
Harper, Joseph


Bates, Alf
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bean, R. E.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Delargy, Hugh
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Bidwell, Sydney
Dempsey, James
Heffer, Eric S.


Bishop, E. S.
Dormand, J. D.
Hooley, Frank


Boardman, H.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Horam, John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Eadie, Alex
Huckfield, Les


Bottomley, Peter
Edge, Geoff
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
English, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Buchan, Norman
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Hunter, Adam


Buchanan, Richard
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Canavan, Dennis
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Janner, Grevilla


Cant, R. B.
Flannery, Martin
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Carter, Ray
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Clemitson, Ivor
Forrester, John
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Freeson, Reginald
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cohen, Stanley
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Coleman, Donald
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Kelley, Richard


Conian, Bernard
Glyn, Dr Alan
Kilroy-Sllk, Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Golding, John
Kinnock, Neil




Lambie, David
Park, George
Strang, Gavin


Lamborn, Harry
Parker, John
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Lamond, James
Parry, Robert
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lipton, Marcus
Pavitt, Laurie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Loveridge, John
Pendry, Tom
Tierney, Sydney


Luard, Evan
Perry, Ernest
Tinn, James


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Tomlinson, John


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Prescott, John
Torney, Tom


McCartney, Hugh
Price, William (Rugby)
Tuck, Raphael


McElhone, Frank
Radice, Giles
Urwin, T. W.


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Robinson, Geoffrey
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Mackintosh, John P.
Roderick, Caerwyn
Ward, Michael


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Watkins, David


McNamara, Kevin
Rooker, J. W.
Watkinson, John


Madden, Max
Roper, John
Wellbeloved, James


Magee, Bryan
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Rowlands, Ted
Whitehead, Phillip


Marks, Kenneth
Sandelson, Neville
Whitlock, William


Marquand, David
Sedgemore, Brian
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Williams, Sir Thomas


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Mills, Peter
Silverman, Julius
Winterton, Nicholas


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Skinner, Dennis
Woodall, Alec


Molloy, William
Small, William
Woof, Robert


Moonman, Eric
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Snape, Peter
Young, David (Bolton E)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spearing, Nigel



Newens, Stanley
Spriggs, Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ogden, Eric
Stallard, A. W.
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Ovenden, John
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Mr. John Ellis.


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Stoddart, David





NOES


Beith, A. J.
Reid, George
Welsh, Andrew


Crawford, Douglas
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wigley, Dafydd


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Freud, Clement
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)



Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Thompson, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Mr. John Pardoe and


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Wainwrlght, Richard (Colne V)
Mr. David Penhaligon.


Kilfedder, James
Watt, Hamlsh

Question accordingly agreed to.

CIVIL AND DEFENCE ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1974–75

Resolved,
That a sum not exceeding £12,737,351·80 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses on certain grants for Civil and Defence Services for the year ended 31st March 1975, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 254.—[Mr. Robert Sheldon.]

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the last two of the foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Edmund Dell, Mr. Joel Barnett, Mr. Denzil Davies and Mr. Robert Sheldon.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2)

Mr. Robert Sheldon accordingly presented a Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1975 and

1976; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

HOUSING (RENTED, ACCOMMODATION)

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape.]

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: Some 19 months have elapsed since the Rent Act 1974 was enacted, and perhaps this is an appropriate moment for the House to take stock of the impact and effect of that piece of legislation on the country.
During the passage of that measure, the Opposition expressed the view that it would have the effect of drying up the supply of rented accommodation. In the arguments which we deployed, we drew attention to the solemn warning of the


Francis Committee, and pointed out the experience of Scandinavia, North America, Paris and Vienna of the inevitable effect that legislation of this kind had upon the supply of accommodation. We also drew from our own experiences, in which the supply of rented accommodation had decreased from being 90 per cent. of the housing stock when the first Rent Act was introduced down to 17 per cent. of the housing stock at the time the Rent Act 1974 was introduced. There has been a further decrease until private rented accommodation is now at a level of about 14 per cent. of the housing stock.
However, our warnings and arguments were to no avail. The Government were singularly inflexible in their attitude, which could be summarised as saying that all private landlords were villains, that they must be exterminated as soon as possible and that everything they owned should be brought into what the Minister for Housing and Construction euphemistically called "social ownership".
We warned the Minister that, if he thought that the public sector could make up the necessary provision, he was living in a world of fantasy. We pointed out that the levels of public expenditure and public borrowing would not permit this.
What we said two years ago is, if anything, even more true today, and we are seeing local authorities obliged to cut back on the municipalisation programmes in which they were to buy up the private sector. The impact of the Act has been far worse than even we imagined. Whenever, in the intervening months, we have sought to raise the problem with the Minister, he has replied to us that there is no evidence that the Act is drying up the supply of rented accommodation and that, if we have evidence, we should please produce it.
Why a Minister should ask the Opposition, with the limited means at their disposal, to undertake this task, I do not know. He has the Civil Service to do the monitoring for him. During this debate we shall want to know whether he has had the effect of the Rent Act 1974 monitored and, if so, with what results. We await with interest any figures about this matter that he can produce.
Let me tell the House what I have tried to do, since the Minister has not been at all forthcoming in this matter. First, within a few months of the passing of the Act, I wrote to all the estate agents concerned with lettings in my constituency. I thought that that would be a preliminary fair sample, because I had about 18,000 furnished lettings in my constituency. The replies which I got back immediately were to the effect that the whole private rented sector was now in a shambles and that, whereas this was normally the busiest time of the year for estate agents for lettings, they had nothing on their books. That was the evidence I had of the immediate impact of the Act.
Then last summer I wrote to a number of newspapers, which circulated in the London area, inviting people to write to me describing their experience of the operation of the Act. I received 451 replies indicating that 505 properties previously let were then up for sale—Rent Act legislation being given as the reason—and 169 properties previously let had already been put up for sale and sold. Within two weeks of receiving the last of those letters I sought an interview with the Minister. For a variety of reasons it was not possible for a number of appointments to be kept and I eventually left the letters in his Department for his officers to study.
The third step I took was more recent. I had a letter sent to universities and polytechnics throughout the country asking for their view of the effects of the Rent Act legislation on the supply of accommodation for students and whether they felt that student accommodation should be taken outside the scope of the Rent Act. As I mentioned during the debate on the Bill put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), the replies were mixed. However, 18 universities informed me that they had grave problems which they attributed directly to the effects of the Rent Act. Others stated that they had sufficient halls of residence and that in their particular part of the country there was no problem. It was significant that the Association of University Accommodation Officers took the unanimous view that the Rent Act had had a vast detrimental effect upon the availability of accommodation for students and it wanted to see immediate modifications.
However, even that plea which we have raised with the Minister from time to time has fallen upon deaf ears. It is in fact worse than that. I was given a written undertaking by a former Under-Secretary in the Department of the Environment that amending legislation would be introduced. The Government have gone back on that undertaking and there are no prospects of the students being helped by the Government.
The problems which are being caused are enormous. Hon. Gentlemen may not be convinced by the bandying around of figures, but I point out to them that of necessity, in view of the resources available to me, the samples must be small. I shall give an indication of the type of letter that I am still receiving today and which the Minister is receiving, because I discovered that some people who write to the Minister do me the courtesy of sending me a copy of the letter they have sent him. Therefore, I know something of the type of representations that are being made to the Minister and the Department of the Environment. An extract from one letter says:
I have been a landlord for 20 years in Putney and have a number of very high quality furnished flats. For years I have had extremely good relations with my tenants, many of whom subsequently became close friends of my wife and myself. Unfortunately, the 1974 Act has destroyed the trust between landlord and tenant. Now when our flats become vacant we no longer let to English people, no matter who they are. This is a great hardship for me as well as for those who want my flats.
A letter I have received from Middlesbrough says:
I have four flats which have been let furnished at very reasonable rents for over eight years. Even rent control did not persuade me to give up letting, but permanent security in the 1974 Rent Act did. Three perfectly good flats are now empty and in the process of being sold. I am sorry to do this as most of my tenants were professional young people saving a deposit for their own houses and stayed for between one and two years. The Rent Act 1974 has killed all this for me. Incidentally, my wife, myself and two children were 10 years in furnished rooms, so we know both sides of the story.
A letter from Scotland says:
I advertised a two-bedroomed flat under a Box Number and had 69 applications, which highlights the present situation in Edinburgh caused by the Rent Act At the moment I am giving preference to foreigners on courses at the university. I have two flats leased to doctors from El Salvador. This seems

ridiculous in view of the large number of our nationals unable to find anywhere to live.
Finally I have a letter from one of my constituents which says:
I advertised two rooms and a kitchen to let in the Hampstead and Highgate Express. Commencing 7 a.m. the 'phone has not stopped ringing. I have had 100 calls already followed by harrowing stories of people sleeping on the floor. 99% of these prospective tenants were satisfied that all the 1974 Act has done is to cut off what accommodation was available.
Those letters do not provide us with any statistical evidence but they give us an impression of what different landlords are thinking in different parts of the country—for example, London, Middlesbrough and Edinburgh. It is not only individual landlords who are singing this type of tune. If one keeps an eye on what is being published one will know that scarcely a month goes by without an article appearing in a newspaper or a magazine drawing attention to the adverse effects that the Rent Act 1974 has undeniably had upon the supply of accommodation. Even Good Housekeeping—an unexpected source—had a long article in February giving case history after case history showing why furnished accommodation is drying up. Within the last week an article has appeared in the Observer in which Katherine Whitehorn wrote:
It is by now a platitude that the more the people who want to protect tenants block up the loopholes in the various Rent Acts, the less rented property there is—I know, without even asking around, of four premises not let in the ordinary way because of it: a shop with the flat above it left empty for three years lest the shop be one day unsaleable with the sitting tenant; my milkman's large house in north London with four empty rooms, 'of course you'd have let them in the old days, but not now'; and two people living in grace-and-favour flats paying their rent in whisky because the owner won't risk a proper tenant.
That is the type of evidence that is appearing month in and month out.
There have been a series of articles and pamphlets printed that seek to posit figures. There is great difficulty in getting statistical evidence short of actually having a national census. Some of the figures that have been bandied about indicate that at present there are approximately 650,000 empty properties and half of them in council ownership. As far as I can ascertain, those figures are


based upon the 1971 census which shows the divisions between the private rented and the public rented sectors. I see that the Minister is shaking his head in disagreement. He has persistently repeated at Question Time that there are about 55,000 empty properties in the public sector. However, the figures that he produces are only the Department of Environment figures of annual re-lets, that is, the re-lets of casual vacancies in current rented accommodation. There is an average 10 per cent. turnover in council flats of which 1 per cent. remain empty at any given time while the new tenant is being allocated to them.
The Department of Environment figures ignore the take-up through municipalisa-tion and properties which are left empty whilst improvements are not being carried out. The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but I suggest that he speaks to some constituents in his own constituency because I would not be surprised if there are not a few such houses owned by his local authority that have been left empty for a disgraceful and inordinate length of time.
The figures which have been produced are inconclusive. For example, "After Six" carried out a survey of notice boards in newsagents' windows. It found that there had been a drop of between 25 and 50 per cent. in the number of small advertisements. The Evening Standard advertisements for furnished accommodation are running at about 75 per cent. below their pre-Act levels. I know that the Government will say that the Rent Act has enabled people to remain in their existing accommodation; and that therefore it does not mean that property has been withdrawn from the market, but simply that people are not being evicted and that the properties are not offered for re-letting. There must be some substance in that, but it does not account for everything. We must look to other figures in order to ascertain what is happening. The best figures one can get, I suggest, are the figures of people managing rented properties.
A group of estate agents has written to me from Bournemouth saying that the lettings managed by them are 14 per cent. less than they were before the passing of the Act. Those properties are either being withdrawn and left empty or they have been sold. The Royal

Institution of Chartered Surveyors recently conducted its own sample among 50 estate agents across the country. Its evidence shows a reduction in management of between 10 and 20 per cent. We are not therefore talking on the basis that the Minister has referred to but on the basis of management.
If we add to this 10 or 20 per cent. the cases he has in mind we possibly arrive at the figure of 75 per cent., which is the reduction in furnished accommodation advertisements in the Evening Standard. We must arrive at something which is realistic, however, so the best evidence we have are the management figures. If we seek to take a mean of these figures we arrive at a figure very close to that supplied from Bournemouth which indicates that in the 19 months which have elapsed since the Rent Act about 15 per cent. of formerly furnished accommodation has been withdrawn from the market by landlords who are thinking along the lines of the landlords I have quoted.
We know from the Minister that in 1974 at the time of the passing of the Rent Act there were 756,000 furnished lettings. He gave that figure on Second Reading. That was his target of the number of people he wanted protected by the Act. If we deduct from that figure the 15 per cent. I mentioned earlier, the loss of accommodation totals 114,600. That is the best method I can devise, short of conducting a national census, of arriving at a figure which indicates the scale of the problem created by the 1974 Act. If there are better ways of doing it, and if the Department or the Minister have made the calculation, no doubt we shall have the benefit of their conclusions.
I should like to be proved wrong because I do not like to think of people being denied a home because of legislation. It is within the Minister's competence to produce the figures if he is minded to do so. The fact that he does not do so is a matter for concern and it makes one wonder whether we are very near the mark when putting these sort of suggestions.
On page 71 of the latest public expenditure White Paper there are tables covering the period 1966 to 1974 showing furnished accommodation as a percentage of the total housing stock, year by year. They show a decline of 8·4 per cent.


in the private rented sector. If we look for a compensation of that in the public sector over the same period we find an increase of only 2·5 per cent. of the national stock. The gap between the decline in the private sector and the improvement in the public sector is thus quite wide. As these figures straddle four years of Labour Government and four years of Conservative Government, perhaps the honours can be divided equally.
The figures have a particular significance in view of what the Minister told the House on 27th January 1973, that there had been an increase in furnished lets of 54,500 between 1966 and 1971. At that time they were out of rent control. What he told the House proves two things. It first proves that he can produce figures and, secondly, that when accommodation is not controlled there is an increase in the supply.
The alternatives were argued in the House during discussion on the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge when we considered the ways in which we could encourage the letting of the vast supply of empty accommodation in the country. We discussed the North Wiltshire scheme and the shorthold scheme as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). We also suggested different ways in which we could mitigate some of the worst effects of the Act, to take student accommodation out of the issue, to end the nonsense of fixed-term lettings, and to exempt residences above shops, lettings by executors and lettings by people of their own homes when they subsequently find they do not have to return to them.
I received two letters recently which give an example of the situation. In one case the owner of a property was moved to the North of England and he entered into a mortgage to buy another property. He let his house in London meanwhile. When he found a buyer for his London house he was unable to sell it because the tenant claimed the full protection of the Rent Acts, and as the owner could not show that he wanted the house for his own use, he had no right to demand it back. The consequence was that because this man made his house available to another family on what he

thought was a temporary basis, he is now saddled with paying two mortgages. The tenant has proposed a simple solution. He told the owner "Pay me £1,500 and I will get out". In the second case the tenant did not ask for a sum of money. He said "Sell me your house for £2,000 less than the purchase price".
How can Labour Members in all conscience say that this is a just law when it permits that kind of situation to arise? What incentive is there to people with a house to let when they know that this is the consequence of being so foolish as to make their property available to others? That is the situation that Labour Members must face up to. If they have the strength of character and the courage to do so they will admit that the Act has been an unmitigated disaster as we said it would be and as the country knows it is.
The other question which is relevant to the debate concerns the housing stock, and no debate would be complete without a word on improvement grants. In 1973 these were running at 453,000. In 1974 they had dropped to 300,500. In 1975 they dropped to 159,000. Therefore, the number of improvement grants for the years 1974 and 1975 totalled 446,500 less than if the 1973 level had been maintained. That figure represents properties not modernised, not converted to provide extra homes, not given basic facilities such as hot water and internal WCs because of the fiscal policies of this Government and their belief in municipalisa-tion and the extension of public ownership rather than the improvement of the housing stock which can be used. If we add the 115,000 houses which I have posited as lost as a result of the Rent Act and of the Government's policy, we reached a total of 560,000 lost homes. That is not a record which I should like to sit lightly upon my shoulders, although the Minister, with a smirk on his face, does not seem to find it worrying one whit.
I respect the hon. Gentleman's sincerity. He believes that the answer to the housing problem is through social ownership. He believes that almost with a religious fervour, a bigoted fervour, which has blinded him to the real plight of people in this country.

5.2 p.m.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): For


the most part I shall try to avoid the tone and style of the speech by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), to which we have just been treated. The hon. Gentleman took us through some statistical exercises which I found interesting and I look forward to receiving the details. I refer to his reference to having had consultations with certain groups of estate agents who have been managing properties and to one of the professional bodies which has reported on the matter.

Mr. Rossi: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Freeson: No. I have hardly started.

Mr. Rossi: I am tired of doing the Minister's work for him. It is time that he did it for himself.

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman should learn to conduct himself with more courtesy and seriousness when discussing housing matters. I was welcoming the information which he had provided and am looking forward to receiving further details. The hon. Gentleman's other statistical references were convoluted nonsense. I will come to those in due course. I have figures which show that he was inaccurate in many areas.
Inevitably, I suppose, I must deal with the well-worn theme that the 1974 Rent Act is the cause of most, if not all, of the troubles in the rented housing sector. That was the style and theme of the hon. Gentleman's speech. Indeed, it is the style and theme of most comments by Opposition Members about the Rent Acts generally. In debate after debate they bring out this criticism. It is a point of view to be argued. There is no point in denying that it is a point of view. But I disagree with it. I do not know why Opposition Front Bench spokesmen should deny a view which is constantly expressed in this House by Opposition Members. They are entitled to that view, and I propose to deal with it.
If in 1974 the Opposition believed that the Bill, as it was, would be an "unmitigated disaster", to use the hon. Gentleman's words, and that it has so proved to be in their view, why did they not vote against that Bill? Why did the

hon. Gentleman seek to make clear in public statements issued by him in the form of Press releases that he was not opposed to the Bill when local people in his constituency and elsewhere challenged him on the point? If the Bill was to be the "unmitigated disaster" which he now alleges, why was there no vote against it when we were a minority Government? We did not have even a small majority then.

Mr. Rossi: The hon. Gentleman knows that there was likely to be a change of Government. Had we defeated the Bill, we would have gone through that summer until the election with a lot of people trying to beat the legislation. We did not want wholesale evictions taking place throughout the summer while people were trying to beat the Bill. The hon. Gentleman will know that, because the complaints which he made about our opposition in Committee were very loud.

Mr. Freeson: That was a clarifying answer. If the Opposition continue to take the same line on the Rent Act generally, why did they not take the opportunity during their three and a half years in office to repeal the Act which they are knocking? If they considered it right to maintain the 1968 Act, why should they object to the extension of the principles of the 1968 Act to the occupants of absentee landlord furnished properties? There can be no logical acceptance of the first and an objection to the second. All we have done in the 1974 Act is to extend the principles of the 1968 Act from dealing simply with unfurnished accommodation to dealing with furnished accommodation. One scratches one's head and wonders why the Opposition now oppose what they did not oppose in 1974—namely the extension of the 1968 Act principles to furnished accommodation.
According to the hon. Member for Hornsey and his hon. Friends, the 1974 Act, as he has been explaining or alleging, precipitated a massive flight from letting by landlords. In little over a year, it is alleged, thousands of dwellings have disappeared from renting. Some have attributed to the Act a decline so enormous—over 600,000 dwellings was the figure quoted in a recent debate in this House which was not challenged by the hon. Gentleman—as to equal the total size of the furnished letting sector. These


wildly inaccurate generalisations serve no sensible purpose. Within a week or two of the Act being passed, the hon. Gentleman was saying that it had caused a complete and massive exit of rented accommodation from the market. Most of these wild allegations serve no sensible purpose. I should like to discuss the issues rather more coolly than the hon. Gentleman is prone to do.
I have never denied that the Act would be a disincentive to some people to let properties. But I should make it clear—I have done so before and I do so again—that this has been offset by the considerable reduction in evictions from thousands of furnished lettings which would otherwise, when vacated, have been sold out of the rented sector. The Act put a stop to a great deal of that activity. That was its purpose and it has been successful.
It is a common experience among those who deal with the problems of people living in stress areas—housing aid centres, housing departments, Members of Parliament in their surgeries, and this is certainly my experience in the London Borough of Brent—that the number of families coming for help and advice over court orders, notices to quit, or harassment have dramatically diminished since the implementation of the 1974 Act. They still come in, but the numbers have dropped dramatically. Some housing aid centres have said publicly that the number of cases of this kind has been at least halved. There has been recent correspondence to this effect in the national Press. Obviously, with these families now secure in their rented homes, there has been a drop in mobility in the private rented sector, but the drop is in compulsory mobility and I am not apologetic about that. I am glad of it.
The standpoint from which the Opposition view the 1974 Act puts a different emphasis on its effect. I do not complain about their right to argue the case as they have done. They focus on how it may have affected the supply of dwellings and they quote, as the hon. Member for Hornsey did, evidence to show that the number of lettings being advertised has dropped steeply. The hon. Member gave some figures to this effect.
That is hardly a surprising finding. As I have said before, we would have ex-

pected the Act to slow down the number of transactions in the sector as fewer tenants needed to seek new accommodation because they were secure in their own homes. Even the hon. Member for Hornsey accepted that, although in a rather back-to-front fashion.

Mr. Rossi: I accepted it in this sense, that the number of advertisements had dropped by 75 per cent. I had posited my figure on a 15 per cent. loss, not 75 per cent. I conceded that there were factors involved in the figures other than deliberate withdrawal of accommodation by landlords.

Mr. Freeson: I have not quoted figures. All I am saying—I gather that it is now accepted—is that the drop in advertised vacancies relates to the increase in security. People are not moving so rapidly because there is no compulsory mobility. Therefore, their flats are not available to let through estate agents or in the Press. That is not surprising.
No one ever suggested that all the problems in the private rented sector would be solved by the 1974 Rent Act, but what we hear constantly from the Opposition is the claim that virtually all the problems of the sector derive either from that Act or from its predecessors, the 1968 and 1965 Acts and others before them.
The private rented sector has been in decline for many years. The only Rent Act significantly to accelerate the rate of decline in letting was the Rent Act of 1957, passed by a previous Conservative Government as the panacea for the problems of the private rented sector. In the few years after the passage of that Act, there was an average fall of 250,000 dwellings per year in the sector—the highest figure on record. Apart from that period, private renting has declined at about 100,000 dwellings a year over a long period. It was only in the wake of the 1957 Act that there was a major increase. One million dwellings were lost in the next four years. Yet that Act was supposed to do the very opposite, according to the case which was made at the time and which has been made constantly since by the Conservative Party when it has felt like knocking the Rent Acts—while not actually voting against them.

Mr. Anthony Grant: The Minister's argument is a great boast


of the fact that he has created more immobility among the people of this country. Yet his colleagues who are concerned with industry and the economy and who wish to get us out of our economic mess all say that one of our major needs is more mobility among the work force. How does he reconcile the two?

Mr. Freeson: It is clear that I should not have given way. The hon. Gentleman should have listened to the phrase I used, which was important. What we have done is reduce compulsory mobility, not voluntary mobility——

Mr. Grant: That is just semantics.

Mr. Freeson: That suggests that the hon. Gentleman thinks that it does not matter. I was making a factual point which is important for what we are now discussing.
As I have said, the decline in the private rented sector can be attributed partly to the Rent Acts being a disincentive, but the fact that the decline has continued during periods of lesser as well as greater legislative control reinforces my view that there are much stronger "pull" than "push" factors at play. There is the drive towards owner-occupation, the availability of more alternative sources of investment than many years ago for small property owners wishing to realise capital assets, better returns on investments than most market rents provide and more council and housing association accommodation.
Owner-occupation has grown enormously over the years and by about 1970 comprised more than half the households in the country. A major factor in that growth has been by change of tenure in existing stock which was previously rented. We need to consider problems which arise at the margin of owner-occupation—that is for another day—but the growth of home ownership through the acquisition of existing buildings, generally down-market, although originated by working-class organisations and an earlier Labour Government, is now common policy between the parties. However, it cannot be treated separately from the rented sector. Its growth must inevitably result in a decline in the number of private dwellings to let.
In such a situation, one still has to ask and answer the question, how do we supply the need for rented accommodation? This is where social ownership, whatever the Opposition's ideological objections may be—and whatever they may think about the ideological basis for much of the thinking about it—is essential. This may be illustrated by some basic figures, some recent, others more historic.
Between 1970 and 1974, the number of rented dwellings fell by an average of 115,000 a year. At the same time public sector building for rent—the hon. Member for Hornsey discussed this point, but so selectively as to render his conclusions inaccurate—dropped from about 200,000 to about 100,000 a year. That is a net loss of 15,000 rented dwellings a year.
In reversing the collapse of public sector building, we are now approving a provision of about 200,000 rented dwellings against an estimated annual loss of about 110,000 private rented dwellings a year. That shows, since we came to office, a net overall gain of 90,000 rented dwellings a year against a small loss in the immediately preceding years. This is no fantasy such as the hon. Member described. These are the facts of housing provision of the last two years as compared with the preceding three or four years.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Is it not a fact that the difference between the two sets of figures that the hon. Gentleman seems to be quoting is that the net gain in the rented housing stock is putting an ever-increasing burden upon the ratepayer and the taxpayer, whereas the cost of provison in the private sector is borne by the individual?

Mr. Freeson: In the private sector, the cost is not necessarily borne by the individual. If I do not deal with that point in detail for lack of time, it will be implicit in some of my later remarks about the conditions of the stock and some of our ideas about how to handle it. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that there is a loss of rented accommodation which we should correct and then complain on another front about the net increase that we are now providing as compared with the net loss in the three or four years before we returned to office.
I want to deal with a matter that was raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) during Question Time today when he sought to prove that there is some kind of decline in prospect in local authority housing. In a somewhat ragged exchange at Question Time he sought to establish that the figures in the recent White Paper on Public Expenditure showed a reduction in the rate of local authority new house-building. They show nothing of the kind. There is no ceiling. The figures which the hon. Gentleman quoted—and I shall pursue this matter in greater detail by correspondence if necessary—relate almost entirely to other aspects of housing policy, which would take a good deal of time to examine in detail today. In case there is any doubt here, in the media or elsewhere, there are no cuts by local authorities in new house building. Housebuilding will rise.

Mr. Michael Morris: Not yet.

Mr. Freeson: I want to make one qualification. I suspect that the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) realises it because otherwise he would not be smiling. I am worried about political changes of policy in certain quarters around the country. This is nothing to laugh about. Opposition Members up and down the country have already indicated their intention in certain cities and towns to cut and hold up housebuilding programmes. The evidence before us—which I shall develop in greater detail if necessary on another occasion—on the basis of the last two years indicates a continuing trend in local authority new housebuilding.

Mr. Timothy Raison: The figures to which the Minister has referred relate to capital investment in housing, so the reduction of £300 million between this year and next year will mean that fewer houses will be provided through public funds.

Mr. Freeson: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman persists in this nonsense. He is a Conservative Front Bench spokesman and Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment. He should stop it. We can show him the facts.

Mr. Raison: Tell me.

Mr. Freeson: We shall do so. I wanted to clarify an area of doubt that arose in earlier exchanges today. I intend to discuss the issues before us in the time left to me. It is not for any member of the Opposition Front Bench who was a member of the last Conservative Government to talk about the housing programmes, their decline or their increase, in view of the collapse in both private and public housebuilding sectors—a situation which this Government inherited in 1974. We inherited the biggest slump in housing construction for between 30 and 40 years. We have reversed that slump and it is not for any Opposition spokesman to query either the desire to get more houses built or the facts that we present to the House on the housebuilding programme.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: In the Minister's castigation of the Conservative Party and bearing in mind any present increase, is it not true that the Labour Party came to power after a decade of falling housebuilding figures and that there is a tremendous backlog to catch up on?

Mr. Freeson: I accept that there is a great backlog but I do not accept that there has been a decade of falling housebuilding figures. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members wish to go outside and have their own debate, they are quite welcome to do so.

Mr. Anthony Grant: The Minister is creating confusion. Will he tell us what these cuts are? If there are no cuts in new building, perhaps he will give us the information on what is happening.

Mr. Freeson: May I suggest that the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) does what I suspect that he has done very little of——

Mr. Raison: Mr. Raison rose——

Mr. Freeson: With respect, the hon. Member for Aylesbury should act like a Front Bench spokesman and stop his constant catapulting and sedentary interventions when I deal with matters which he and his hon. Friends raise. He did it during Question Time and I hope that he will desist.
I suggest that the hon. Member for Harrow, Central reads the White Paper


and tries to understand the figures which are the subject of discussion. No matter what Opposition Members may say, the plain fact is that having had a collapse in housebuilding and a net loss in the provision of rented dwellings during the three to four years before we came to office, there is now a major increase in housebuilding in this country and mere is a net increase in the number of rented dwellings provided.

Mr. Raison: Mr. Raison rose——

Mr. Freeson: I intend to continue with my remarks. [Interruption.] It is an interesting debate. Perhaps we could hear it on another occasion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): The Chair will intervene if it becomes necessary.

Mr. Freeson: I could also make comments about the other side's interventions from a sedentary position, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I propose to do so—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that good manners are imperative.

Mr. Freeson: We shall do our best to continue with good manners but requests for good manners should go to both sides of the House, not just to one.
I have given some current figures which have obviously upset the Opposition because they were in office when the collapse in housebuilding occurred. I want to cite some figures which show the background to the rented housing position over a longer period of time and which will refute the main argument advanced by the hon. Member for Hornsey.
Thirty years ago there were about 8·6 million rented dwellings in Great Britain—7 million were privately rented and 1·6 million were in the public sector. Today there are 8·5 million rented homes, including 2·2 million in the private sector and 6·1 million in the public sector. That is a net loss over 30 years of 100,000 dwellings. In other words, losses and gains have virtually netted out over this period while the general quality of the rented stock has vastly improved as a result of the switch from one kind of ownership to another.
I turn to the vital topic of getting better use of the existing stock of housing.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Freeson: Is it on the point that I am discussing?

Mr. Lawrence: It concerns the national statistics. It is relevant that the Minister should give us the figure for the number of homeless at present compared with the number of homeless 30 years ago.

Mr. Freeson: I do not know much about the figures for 30 years ago but if the hon. Gentleman wants up-to-date figures on the number of registered families that are homeless I shall write to him as soon as possible. However, I cannot give him the figures for 30 years ago.
I turn to the subject of the existing stock of housing, although this will be pursued in greater detail towards the end of my remarks. No doubt there are particularly bad cases, such as those which the hon. Member for Hornsey mentioned, which I should follow up. I welcome his courtesy in providing me with the details about the Brent cases. He has not had any correspondence with me on the matter and it is normal parliamentary practice between one hon. Member and another to conduct affairs in a somewhat different way. I give him warning that if we are to break normal custom, we might get "Hornsey" and "Aylesbury" bandied across the Dispatch Boxes, too. I would welcome the information——

Mr. Rossi: Mr. Rossi rose——

Mr. Freeson: If I may say so, not right now. The hon. Gentleman does not do his case any good by treating it with such levity. To make the kind of sweeping generalisations which he and others have made on the basis of individual cases is quite false.
The re-let survey to which the hon. Gentleman referred covers municipalised properties—it does not exclude them. It covers all properties in the housing revenue accounts for the country. The survey showed that out of a total of 5 million local authority dwellings in England and Wales, about 22,000 are vacant and available for letting at any given time; and about 34,500 are undergoing modernisation, repair or conversion.
These figures show that vacancy rates are far lower in the public sector than in the private sector.
The latest comprehensive information on empty houses, both private and public, is from the 1971 census. Some 676,000 dwellings out of a total stock of 17 million homes in England and Wales were recorded as vacant on census night—3·8 per cent. of the total stock and well within the 5 per cent. margin that housing economists allow for in the housing market. Over 100,000 of that figure were newly built and not yet occupied. Many thousands more were unfit. About 40 per cent. of the empty dwellings in the 1971 National House Condition Survey were classifiable slums. But despite the often legitimate reasons for property being empty, I am most concerned that, especially in areas of housing stress, empty or under-used property should be occupied as quickly as possible.
At the end of the debate my hon. Friend will deal more extensively with the action we are taking. I shall refer only briefly to some aspects of it.
Our measures to end the mortgage famine of early 1974 and to stabilise the flow of mortgage funds have reduced the number of houses empty for want of purchasers. Our policy of gradual renewal of older housing to prevent the need for massive clearance will reduce the blight of older housing standing empty.
Among the initiatives has been the adoption of leasing schemes for empty private property by over 40 local authorities; rapid repairs services to deal quickly with municipalised properties in a state of disrepair; selective conversion of large under-occupied local authority houses to provide more small dwellings; priority municipalisation and housing association acquisitions of vacant and sub-standard housing. We have been discussing with the local authority associations and other representative bodies a range of administrative and managerial measures which will be the subject of a forthcoming circular on the better use of the housing stock.
A fundamental aspect of the better use of stock is its care, modernisation and maintenance. About 400,000 local authority dwellings need modernising and

upgrading, partly because of poor standards imposed when they were built and partly because of failure in putting adequate resources into programmed maintenance over many years.
Much more serious is the large-scale obsolescence and disrepair in private rented property, especially in our inner urban areas. This has been mainly unaffected by housing improvement Acts, which have had their main impact on owner-occupied and council-owned property. While the private rented sector constitutes only 16 per cent. of the total housing stock, 40 per cent. of its dwellings lack basic amenities and suffer disrepair; and 23 per cent. of this stock is actually unfit to live in.
These problems are central to future policy on housing finance, better housing management and our review of the Rent Acts. We must find ways to ensure that all owners of rented property are enabled to establish something akin to capital reserve funds for housing repairs and renewals on the basis of model schemes.
During the passage of the Rent Act 1974 I declared our intention to undertake a review of the Rent Acts and recently the Secretary of State announced that this would follow on from our Housing Finance Review later this year.
A central issue of the Rent Act review will be the vexed question of the rent determination process and rent levels, a question which the Housing Finance Review also has much in mind. The question of an adequate return on investment is far more crucial to decisions on the continuance of letting than any question of security of tenure, such as is campaigned for by the Conservative Party so frequently.
The present system of rent fixing has achieved much over the last 10 years in setting a level of rent fair to both landlord and tenant. But there are problems which need examination, which have been particularly exacerbated by the appreciable inflation of recent years. It is certainly important to encourage maintenance of property, while at the same time retaining accommodation at rent levels suitable for those who cannot afford high rents.
We cannot and must not allow rents simply to run free, as is advocated by


quite a large number of hon. Members—although I am not clear about the Opposition Front Bench view on this matter. This would run contrary to the principle of protecting tenants from paying excessive rents. What the review must try to find is a method which ensures that sufficient resources go into maintaining housing and at the same time protects tenants from excessive rents because of shortage, particularly in stress areas.
I should like to spend my last few minutes in looking at how I see the private rented sector developing in the future.
I believe that private landlordism will eventually evolve into social ownership.

Mr. Raison: Disappear.

Mr. Freeson: I stand by that view. As such—yes.
This concept of social ownership will not merely be an extension of local authority estates but will cover the full spectrum of housing associations, cooperatives and other forms of social ownership. Indeed, I hope that forms of social ownership could incorporate new ideas which would involve some of the management expertise at present within the private sector.
One possible approach on these lines that I have been considering which might be practicable and help towards the preservation of rented property in good repair is an idea that has also been considered by organisations such as the London Boroughs Association—a form of licensing. This might take the form of an arrangement whereby existing organisations control properties on behalf of the public authority for a suitable payment.
I have been thinking about various other ways by which we could widen and diversify social ownership and tenures. I I attach great importance to this ideologically—as a pluralist rather than a monopolistic Socialist! But it is important, too, on practical grounds, for by acting in this field we could, in a continuing situation of capital expenditure and local government management constraints, bring private managerial and financial resources into a social housing policy. This is necessary in order to speed up what, under conventional

municipalisation policy, will be far too slow a process of socialising rented property in relation to the decline and decay of the private sector.
Some of the possible developments that I have been considering include various forms of local authority and housing association leasing of private rented property, including compulsory leasing in certain stress situations. I have also been considering joint local authority/ private landlord management schemes; registration of small landlords in "producer-co-operatives" on a proper costing basis; annuity purchase of small landlords' properties by local authorities or housing associations; landlord/tenant co-ownership or shared equity schemes; tenants co-operative enfranchisement and a statutory right to collective purchase in certain circumstances; and housing associations to sponsor home ownership and shared equity, as well as co-operative housing.
We must look to ways of meeting the needs of the more mobile tenants, of single people, of those who want a high quality of accommodation and can afford to pay for it, and of those who for one reason or another do not wish either to become owner-occupiers or to rely on council-owned housing. I see a variety of developments. There must clearly be greater flexibility on the part of local authorities and housing associations in their allocation policy and in the way that they manage property.
Our Housing Financial Review, our Working Party on Alternative Forms of Social Ownership and Tenure, our Study Group on Municipalisation and Improvement Programmes, our housing management advisory groups and our Rent Acts review are aimed at the issues and objectives that I have been discussing.
I invite the Opposition to come out of the trenches in which they have stuck themselves and to join us in developing a genuinely social policy on housing for the future.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I promise to be brief. We have already had over one hour of speeches from the two Front Benches, and I know that many other hon. Members will wish to speak in this debate, which is to stop at 7 o'clock.
There are many observations that one would wish to make, particularly after the last few minutes of the Minister's speech, because he threw out many interesting ideas. However, one is rather horrified about the fact that the review of the Rent Acts will not start for at least a year and that it will probably be about two years before we get results. That is a very long time to wait if one is waiting for a property, and at present it is not much encouragement.
First, it is almost criminal that at a time of severe economic crisis we are not making full use of our assets, and those include bricks and mortar. I was proud a week or two ago to be one of the sponsors of the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane). It contained a number of small but very useful clauses which the Government could and should have adopted, particularly in regard to resident landlords, second let-tings and the right for council tenants to sublet.
Secondly, there is still a lack of accurate statistics. We are seemingly still going back to the 1971 census. I know that the next census has been delayed, and that it may be difficult to obtain accurate figures. Are there 600,000 or a million empty properties capable of renovation and occupation? I suspect that the figure is nearer a million. It is important to obtain proper returns of empty properties from local authorities, and here I include commercial properties. Many local authorities are sitting on shops, offices and so on which they have bought up for central area redevelopment which has not taken place and which could be converted for occupation without too much expenditure. There have been some such premises in my constituency for more than 10 years. The Government should be vigorously pursuing these questions with the authorities. I welcome the Minister's declaration on the matter in his speech.
There is still too much demolition. I receive a number of letters from the North-East, where many people are still concerned about the number of compulsory purchase orders and where local authorities are still demolishing properties which, I am told in a letter today,

were the subjects of improvement grants only 12 months ago.
Some London boroughs are willing to give housing associations properties which were scheduled for demolition. Quadrant is one housing association which has done up 150 properties at an average cost of £2,000. That is the right way to deal with the problem.
I know the different feelings on both sides of the House about private landlords. There is also a difference between city Members and those of us who represent more rural constituencies. Such differences exist in my party. Councillors in a city such as Liverpool have ideas about the rôle of the private landlord different from those of Members who represent constituencies such as mine. That is a good argument for having powerful regional authorities, if devolution is brought about, able to decide whether to adopt certain legislation. The Rent Act 1974 is an example. I think that that Act was right for the inner urban areas, but in my constituency and, I dare say, in Bournemouth, it has dried up accommodation and made matters more difficult.
However, I remind Conservative Members of the unfortunate attitudes now being adopted by some unscrupulous mobile home site owners, which is a rude reminder of the attitude some people take when they have the opportunity to increase rents.
Nevertheless, I am sure that we should give property owners more freedom to let with certainty of regaining possession. I know all about the North Wiltshire scheme, and I welcome it. But some local authorities are worried because they are not sure that they will be able to obtain possession when the three-year term is up. Why not permit the letting, furnished or unfurnished, of all properties coming vacant after a certain date? It should be for a fixed term, subject to the same conditions as apply to the letting of business premises, under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, and subject to a fair rent being fixed by the rent officer. By this means the tenant would have a considerable measure of protection and the landlord could regain his house if it were required for his own occupation or for a member of his family or for redevelopment.
If that measure of freedom is provided to property-owners one is also entitled to consider requisition or the right to challenge in court for a tenancy if a house remains unoccupied for a long time without a valid reason. Owners could be given the opportunity to let first.
We want not only to see our people properly housed but to allow them some mobility, which a pool of property to let would provide. Time after time jobs are turned down because of lack of housing and the cost of moving. I support a property-owning democracy, but one undergoes quite an ordeal when one moves, as I recently did. One has to deal with estate agents and solicitors and one has to borrow money at high rates of interest, in addition being charged an arranging fee, something which made me hopping mad.
The police force gives an example of the problems of mobility. I know of a top-class policeman who is leaving the force because he has bought his own house and dare not give up possession in case he does not get it back. Giving the property-owner more freedom to let would help in that situation and in industry.
The maintenance and management of council-owned property are extremely costly. We desperately need to establish tenants' co-operatives. It is not easy, because most tenants do not want to take the responsibility, but it is essential if we are to cut council property repair costs.

5.45 p.m.

Mrs. Millie Miller: We have heard a great deal about the effects of the 1974 Act. Hon. Members of the Opposition are fully aware, as we are, of the way in which the private rented sector so rapidly dried up under the previous Administration.
In the early months of 1973 I met a large group of residents in a Central London area who were under terrible pressure from the owners of the properties in which they lived. The break-up of the estate had enabled the owners to sell individual units. While they were waiting to sell the properties they were letting them out furnished to groups of students who in many cases, but not in all, were causing great distress to the people who had established residence

there. The situation in many parts of Central London resembles that following the 1957 Rent Act when security of tenure was removed from many people in the lower income groups rather than in the medium income groups.
The group that I met in 1973 are now campaigning against attempts by the present owners to drive them out of their properties, either by increasing management and service charges over and over again, or by trying to persuade them to vacate their property so that it can be sold. A number of companies have been involved as landlords over the last few years. The situation is a repetition of what happened in the 1970–74 period.
The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) mentioned a reduction in improvement grants. He may not be aware of it, but by the time the Conservative gimmick of improvement grants came to an end there were many rackets involved, and some people were pocketing the money that they were given in grants. Others were using grants to build play rooms. Following the 1957 Housing Act, Milner Holland in his Report which was published in 1965 spoke of:
Increasingly attractive improvement grants offered to owners in a succession of Acts from 1949 in an attempt to encourage the installation of amenities … but landlords of rented houses generally remained unattracted.
The Minister's remarks today confirm that in many cases landlords have remained unattracted.
There is no shame on our side of the House in the fact that there are fewer furnished rented properties on the market today because we know the terrible plight in which families were placed when they were forced out of furnished accommodation. That is why we campaigned for the 1974 Act. I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has said about the difference between mobility in terms of labour needs and mobility that is forced on defenceless families whose homes are taken from them in the search for profit.
Milner Holland was presented with evidence in the early 1960s about the removal of security of tenure and the effect that it would have. Houses were wanted by owners not for their own occupation but for reletting at higher rents than the original occupants could


afford. A growing number of homeless families were found to be applying for welfare accommodation in that period.
That was the situation in which pressure was put on tenants to leave their homes. The 1974 Act has been successful in substantially reducing that pressure.
It must be accepted that one of the worst affected areas is London. It has more rented properties, and more furnished rented properties, in proportion to the total housing stock than any other area. It has more housing stress, more families in difficulties and greater social problems of a general kind.
It is in London that the worst consequences of the housing policies pursued by the previous Administration are being felt. Ruth Glass, who reported to the Milner Holland Committee, described what might easily be the scene in London today when she said that inner London was composed of zones of transition. She meant that families at the end of council housing queues and immigrants from outside London and from overseas were making their way to the London area. She said that inner London had largely been rebuilt by the local authorities and that there had been a reduction in densities. That has meant that in many cases there has not been enough room for those who want to return to central London.
The inner London problem is spreading to the outer areas. The problem of empty property, whether in the private rented sector, the local authority sector or the owner-occupier sector, or in the hands of a multitude of Government Departments, is a crying shame for all the hundreds of thousands who have unsatisfactory homes.
I invite hon. Members to join me in a walk around London to see the blight which has been created in our time, a blight which is denying decent families decent homes. Public expenditure should be directed to maintaining and improving houses. There are many solid and well-built properties which stand waiting for tenant occupation.
I recognise the point of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), that many properties have been taken into use for offices and other non-conforming

user rights since the war. In Russell Square, for example, house after house bears the notice "To let for office accommodation". That is a common situation although there are millions of square feet of purpose-built office accommodation standing idle. Rows of beautiful houses are being used as office accommodation.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on making a most constructive statement of intent, but we want intention turned into action. The people of London have suffered since the war. They suffered the bombing during the war and the neglect of private landlords for almost a century. Those factors took their toll of London's housing hopes. It is time to stop talking, to stop making surveys, to stop preparing reports and to get down to the business of using empty property. Let us take empty property into social ownership. Let us come to arrangements with landlords and use the property which is so desperately needed.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: I hope that the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller) will forgive me if I do not take up her argument in detail. I wish to make a particular case—namely, that we need privately rented sectors in our cities and that we shall continue to need them for the foreseeable future. It is virtually unthinkable that it will be possible for there to be any substantial decontrol in areas where there is housing stress. Any idea of a substantial expansion of the private rented sector is a pie-in-the-sky hope. Therefore, we are left with the task of making the best of a bad job.
I am sad that over the past two years the Government have shown that they are determined to make the worst of a bad job. The Minister's speech was peevish, petulant and thin-skinned. Perhaps it indicated the quality of his case and the record that he is having to defend after holding office for two years. In particular, I take issue with his suggestion that the extension of council renting can compensate for an equivalent decline in private renting. There is no equation.
I accept that the hon. Gentleman is sincere when he says that he is a pluralist and that he objects, as does his Secretary of State, to the concept of councils becoming monopoly landlords. But I hope


that he is not merely paying lip service to pluralism. I hope he will ensure by positive action that there will be genuine choice in the rented sector. If we were to have a situation in which large areas of our cities were in the control of council monopolies, our citizens would suffer a grievous loss of freedom.
There is another reason for private renting being so important that relates to my concept of what a city is all about. The Minister is proud that he has abolished compulsory mobility. I understand why he takes that line. I hope that he also understands that a city lives, thrives and grows because young people are all the time coming in to refuel it, to give it new life. If there is immobility a city will ossify and decline. If that is allowed to happen we shall see our cities going the way of many cities on the other side of the Atlantic.
It is natural that young people coming into the cities for the first time should find their way into the private rented sector, especially the furnished sector. In our policy towards the existing privately rented sector, and the replacement of that sector through voluntary housing associations, for example, we should pay especial attention to the need to provide for young people coming to the cities for the first time. Very often they move to the cities to commence their first job. As they lack residential qualifications they are not offered local authority accommodation. They are not able to make their way into the owner-occupier sector because of their economic circumstances. They turn to the privately rented sector, especially the furnished sector. It is an important sector.
I do not believe that we can contemplate any substantial measure of decontrol. I agree with the Minister that if there were substantial decontrol we should be likely to repeat the experience of 1957. We should see a tremendous haemorrhage out of the private rented sector. I do not look for any substantial measure of decontrol in our cities, nor do I believe it is possible to look for any substantial expansion or new investment in the private sector. One reason is the economic situation. It has not been possible to build flats privately to rent at a profit for the past 15 years. In view of the high cost of building in central London, and also the rents that must as a result be

charged, we are in cloud-cuckoo-land if we think of making any profit on top. As chairman of a housing association which deals with property conversions, I know that the registered rents are often below one-third of the real costs. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect those rents to treble and also to expect an element of profit.
The division between the parties on housing matters and the implacable hostility of the Labour Party towards the rôle of the private landlord, inhibits expansion in the privately-rented sector and also takes no heed of the continued substantial contribution made by that sector. I hope that it will be possible to overcome the chasm between the two sides of the House and to seek to find common ground.
I wish to make five specific suggestions to make the best of a bad job in the privately-rented sector. The first suggestion is tangential because it involves the rôle of the voluntary housing movement. At the end of his remarks the Minister went so fast that it was impossible to list his suggestions, but he seemed to have an open mind about the range of options open, in a non-council sense, in the social area of housing to meet the varying needs of our cities.
I hope that particular attention will be paid to the problems thrown up by the large blocks of flats in private ownership in many cities, some of which are now in the hands of receivers or are in other financial trouble. The options open for those blocks of flats lie between their being placed in ordinary council ownership and their becoming luxury semi-hotels. Both options are equally obnoxious. We must find a way via cooperatives, co-ownership schemes, housing associations, or in some other way, to ensure that such properties are used to provide accommodation for the middle band of people who in the past 25 years have been squeezed from the cities.
My second suggestion relates to the subject of short leases. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) hopes to speak on that subject as it affects empty properties. We certainly must do something about the situation. I do not know whether something can be done by way of short leases, or on the lines of the North


Wiltshire scheme, or via a system of housing emergency officers suggested by Shelter. I do not know how it is to be done, but one of these options must be taken up. The Government must say which road they are to take. It will be disastrous to delay any longer.

Mr. Freeson: We are already backing 40 local authorities in pursuing schemes on the lines of the North Wiltshire scheme.

Mr. Scott: I am grateful for that assurance from the Minister. In backing local authorities to start such schemes, I hope that there will be no back-door municipalisation. I hope that whatever is done will be a genuine step to bring available properties back into use, if only for a short time.
Thirdly, I hope that the Government will consider whether they were wise on 20th February to talk out the Homes Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane). That was a small, sensible piece of legislation and would have given a useful breathing space while the Government's major review is taking place. I could not understand the Government's attitude on that occasion in defeating that legislation. I believe that the provisions in my hon. Friend's Bill are important.
Fourthly, I wish to deal with the subject of incentives. Will the Minister seek to persuade whichever of his right hon. Friends will be presenting the Budget in a few weeks' time to see that resident landlords are exempted from capital gains tax when selling properties? Will the Government consider exempting such landlords from the first tranche of their rental income when they are letting rooms in their own properties? It is common ground that there is a great deal of under-occupation in the public and private sectors. The right kind of tax incentives could bring a great deal of accommodation on the market, do something to repair the damage done by the Rent Act 1974, and relieve the accommodation problems of young people who come to live in cities for the first time.
Fifthly, I wish to emphasise that the frustrations of landlords and tenants over the law are now very great. Consideration should be given to the establishment,

under a county court type of procedure, of small informal courts for landlords and tenants to deal swiftly with problems in the privately-rented sector.
I appeal to the Minister to build on the last part of his remarks in respect of the various options which he put before the House in respect of the privately-rented sector. Instead of keeping his cards so close to his chest inside his Department and presenting us with a fait accompli, will he support the idea of a Select Committee on housing to examine, as its first responsibility, the situation in the privately-rented sector? Will he try to find some common ground to prevent the subject of housing being used as a political football, and will he put the interests of the people first?

Mr. Frank Allaun: Although there may not be such a great difference between the housing policies of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) and some Labour Members, I am sure he will admit that on most issues there is a wide divergence of view between the two sides. Therefore, does he not agree that such a coalition on housing could do more harm than good?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman seeks to perpetuate the divide. If such a divide exists, let a Select Committee find out how much common ground there is.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Robin Corbett: The effrontery of the Opposition Front Bench is exceeded only by its ability to forget the heartbreak and shambles on housing matters left behind by the Conservatives in the latter part of 1973. This is not the time to go into that sad story, except to say that in 1973 the number of new housing starts and completions in the public sector were at their most miserable level for more than a decade.
To meet the situation the Labour Government issued Circular 70/74. In paragraph 3 of that circular my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment urged
that all possible steps are taken to secure an immediate increase in local authority programmes".
Part of this effort sought to encourage local authorities to examine the possibility of doing deals with private builders


holding land with valid planning permissions in what were called "package deals".
My own district council, the Dacorum District Council, tried to enter into such an arrangement with a firm of private builders owning land with valid planning permission. That firm is Fairview Estates (Enfield) Limited.
On 2nd January 1975, Fairview made an offer of 363 homes on an estate which it was developing at Woodhall Farm, Redbourn Road, Hemel Hempstead. The offer was for the Dacorum District Council to buy "off the shelf", as it were, homes to be built to the builders' own plans. But council officers carried out an inspection of homes already built by Fairview and found evidence of poor workmanship and serious technical deficiencies. They indicated that the council would be buying a load of trouble.
A report submitted to the housing committee of the Council on 4th February 1975 showed, for example, that by Parker Morris standards five house types were deficient in floor area. In other words, they were as pokey as farm labourers' cottages were in the earlier part of this century. Roof space thermal insulation of 25 millimetres of fibre-glass for houses and none for flats fell short of normal standards. Exterior windows could not be cleaned from the inside. There was no evidence that structural timbers had been treated with preservative. The floor screed to flats was below the standard recommended by the Building Research Station. For this reason the council insisted that in any deal it would not buy houses or flats already built and would want to supervise the construction of homes in the proposed package deal. Building regulations deal mainly with public health and safety factors and do not cover the more important detailed matters to which the council rightly wanted to pay attention.
It is interesting to note that at the time of the Fairview offer for a package deal there was a slump in the private house market and, sitting on a fairly hefty investment of land which must have cost between £20,000 and £25,000 an acre when bought, the company clearly saw some advantage to its cash-flow position in such a deal. To be fair, there was a matching advantage to Dacorum

District Council provided it could be satisfied with the standards of building, materials and workmanship.
Talks continued between the council and Fairview on price and timing, and led to what Fairview described as "this firm offer" being made in October 1975 for the building of 363 homes with a clause to cover a rise in costs. There is no doubt the firm offer was made. The council's housing committee minute No. 1202 at the committee meeting of 25th November 1975 records:
The committee noted that the council at its meeting of 18th November, 1975 has agreed to accept the offer of Fairview Estates Ltd. to provide land, estate works and 363 dwellings on this estate for £4,100,000.
The committee approved that acceptance. This was subject to contract of course, and the council proceeded to try to get this signed, first, in accordance with Circular 70/74, to buy the necessary 22 acres of land at the District Valuer's price of about £34,400 an acre. Department of Environment yardstick approval had been obtained on 30th October 1975. Significantly, Fairview never got around to signing that contract nor indeed the legal papers needed for the council's purchase of the land.
The next the council knew—and the recent improvement in the private house market is not unconnected with this—was on 5th March 1976 when Fairview wrote withdrawing from what it now chose to describe as "this proposed package deal" and which less than five months earlier had been described by it as "this firm offer". Indeed that letter frankly acknowledges, I understand, that the company came to this view as a result of the improvement in the current market value of the finished dwellings. The use and development of housing stock is to do with people and getting them into decent accommodation.
The ethics of this move are dubious, though legally the company is in the right. But what of the effect? By one stroke of the pen, the company has condemned 363 of my constituents to stay on the waiting list longer than expected. It has torpedoed the local authority's housing programme, reducing it from a planned 1,390 over the next two years to 1,027. This firm has played ducks and drakes not just with the council but with the 363 people on the waiting list. It was


ready to use public money to help it out of the problems it had at the time of "firm offer".
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has left the Chamber, for this situation may not be unconnected with the fact that Fairview has meanwhile done deals with the GLC, and the Circle 33 housing association from the London Borough of Islington and the Metropolitan Housing Trust of the Borough of Haringey. In other words, having been helped out by these smaller deals—and by authorities with different pressures on them which have been willing to accept standards which my council would not—and I do not criticise those councils—it is now putting all its houses into the private market.
Fairview's late decision to withdraw its previous "firm offer" is not a good example of the sensible partnership which there should and could be between local authorities and private builders holding land. I cannot help thinking that the decision will set back the development of these package deals and make local authorities more wary of even discussing them.
I hope that the Minister will read through what I have said and perhaps call in the details of the unhappy episode for further consideration. Certainly any local authority or housing association contemplating any deals with Fairview Estates Ltd. would be well advised to think twice and three times. It is quite disgraceful that having toyed around with the package deal, the company should back down because it sees the chance of quicker and bigger bucks around the corner.
I hope that the Minister will look at what I have said and see whether there is some further advice he can give to local authorities about such deals.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: The Front Bench speeches will begin at about 6.45 p.m. I therefore appeal to hon. Members' better natures for brief speeches.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: This is a United Kingdom debate, even though it is slanted more towards the English than the Scottish situation. Since

the only hon. Member in the Chamber from Scotland is a Member of the SNP, that might be a good advertisement for devolution.
The Government have a case to answer in regard to the Scottish housing stock. In Scotland most housing is public housing. The rented sector is predominantly publicly-owned and the private rented properties are a relatively minor percentage of Scotland's housing stock. It is in that context that private rented housing takes its place as only one part of the whole Scottish housing stock.
The housing stock in Scotland is not being efficiently or effectively used. We have heard the argument about roofs over heads and the suggestion that we now have enough buildings to put a roof over everybody's head. But that is not true in regard to certain groups, such as single-parent families, the single homeless, young married couples or students. We seem to have an annual ritual of homeless students and the Rent Act 1974 has certainly played a part in creating this problem.
We must think not only of roofs over heads, but also of the standard of housing and what kind of roofs we can manage to put over people's heads. In Scotland, there are far too many houses with shared toilets and no baths, and the housing stock that exists is not being used properly. About 200,000 houses fall below the minimum basic standards.
According to the latest information I have, 7·4 per cent. of households have no bath or shower and about 220,000 households lack the exclusive use of one of the standard amenities—an inside toilet, a hot water tap or a bath. In 1976, this is an incredible indictment.
The roofs-over-heads argument begins to wilt when one investigates the actual state of the housing stock. Professor Cullingworth and his Committee had no mandate to look at rural deprivation but even on the small amount of evidence it came across the Committee was shocked. We do not suffer just from serious urban deprivation; there is also an extremely serious problem of rural deprivation to be investigated.
The cliché that we have enough houses in Scotland is not entirely true. Effective use of our housing stock must include an all-out battle to raise the standard of existing homes.
Of course we shall never solve the "housing problem". It is always a matter of rising standards and rising expectations. The day when Scotland's housing standards equal those of present-day Sweden I shall be very happy.
A great measure of housing ideas and priorities derives from the "homes for heroes" approach following two world wars. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, that approach produced the massive housing developments like Drumchapel, Easterhouse and Castlemilk in Glasgow—massive concrete jungles. Behind the cilché "concrete jungle" is the reality of sprawling, soulless public housing estates, built without people in mind, without shops, pubs, places of entertainment, or social amenities. In other words, it has created houses but not communities.
Any efficient use of the Scottish housing stock must now take these social needs into account. This situation and the use of the housing stock has created innumerable problems at the level of individual human beings. A glance at children's panel proceedings in our courts, vandalism, and rising crime rates shows part of the price being paid for these mistakes. The roofs-over-heads philosophy is not enough.
In dealing with the housing stock, there has been an additional problem in an element of overbearing paternalism. In this connection, the situation in my country differs greatly from that in England I hope that the Minister, in extending his municipalisation schemes, will examine the situation in Scotland and learn valuable lessons. In any plans for the future of the housing stock in Scotland, I hope to see far greater tenant participation and involvement, whether through co-operatives or other forms of active participation in decision making. There are signs of this happening spontaneously in different areas, where tenant action groups are forming to meet various problems confronting them.
One sign of the inefficient use of our present housing stock may be seen in the sadly positive creation of new slums in our massive housing estates. An example is the Blackhill housing estate, in Glasgow. There are other cases of public housing estates which won awards for architecture and design when they were first constructed but became slums within 10 years. Massive building programmes

without concern for individuals or for the participation of the individuals who live in them will not do. Something must be done to improve housing management training and techniques. I note with dismay the dearth of such management training courses in Scotland. The sound use of our housing stock must begin and end at the human level.
A second phase, following that of postwar housing policy, came in the late 1950s and early 1960s, with massive new building programmes giving way to massive slum clearance programmes, through the comprehensive development philosophy and massive housing demolition. But, in relation to the efficient use of the housing stock, this has created massive problems at the human level. Whole communities were smashed up. This created among ordinary individuals a feeling of de-personalisation, insecurity and disorientation. Moreover, these programmes never succeeded in matching the task.
Worst of all, this grand slam approach has not been completed, for it has led to extensive urban wastelands in many of our cities, in which on any night one can see tenement stubs with just one or two lights still on. It is always the worst-off people who get caught in these circumstances. They are trapped in these crumbling, mouldering tenements. The elderly, the infirm, the low-income families and the young couples are marooned in these islands of squalor. When neighbours move out, it is always the undesirables who move in—the "winos", the drifters and the vandals. In some cases, young children are being brought up in these surroundings. Recent tragedies in Scotland have been all too sad reminders of what can go wrong in this situation.
Since the first post-war housing programmes have created new slums and urban housing "no-go" areas, we see how many tenants are refusing to be rehoused in the situation I have described. Recent eviction cases in Glasgow illustrate that point. It is a sad combination of the failure of two post-war housing policies.
Although these are marginal cases, they are in a sense the left-overs from an otherwise Government success story in rehousing people. These complex problems are real, and must be catered


for. That is why I ask the Government to complete as rapidly as possible these redevelopment programmes, as an urgent priority. That must be done if the housing stock is to be utilised properly.
The most recent phase of housing policy shows a shift in emphasis from new building to renovation and repair of existing stock. That is seen in the statistics as a fall in public housebuilding under both Governments over the past, say, 10 years and, at the same time, the transfer of resources to modernisation grants and incentives.
That in itself has created grave problems. First, fewer new houses have been built. Scotland is at the end of the European league table with regard to new houses built per thousand population. The figure for Scotland is 5·4, whereas in Norway it is 9·8, while another small country, Sweden, produces at double the Scottish rate. Older housing stock is being demolished but, sadly, new houses are not being produced to replace it. It must be urgent priority to build new public and private houses to freshen-up and modernise the existing stock.
Unfortunately, that is less likely to happen under the present policy advocated by the Government, since there has also been a fall in the amount of money, in real terms, allocated to housing. Less money is spent, in real terms, and fewer houses are built. That is unacceptable in, for example, Strathclyde, which shows a 97 per cent. pocket of hard-core urban deprivation.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): The hon. Gentleman is waxing eloquent about the need to build new houses. He is a constituent of mine and Member of the Scottish National Party. Can he explain the decision of the SNP in Stirling not to build any more council houses?

Mr. Welsh: Before the hon. Gentleman criticises Stirling's housing policy, he should study the record in Strathclyde, which is a disgrace. However, I want to finish my speech.
If better use is to be made of the Scottish housing stock, housing must be given a greater priority than any Govern-

ment have given it so far. We demand an immediate, steady and effective increase in the housing programme, both public and private. We must have the machinery to meet Scotland's housing needs and to update our housing stock. The Under-Secretary of State's system is an insult to the people of Scotland. We must have a proper Scottish housing Ministry with its own back-up facilities and finance to improve the utilisation of the housing stock. There must be an all-Scottish housing survey, using acceptable minimum standards to map out the extent of the problem and it must be done urgently.
In order to build up and effectively use the housing stock, there must be adequate consultation and co-operation with the construction industry to ensure that men, skill and materials are available where they are needed, and when. It is crazy that we should have 61 per cent. unemployment in the construction industry in Strathclyde, side by side with this pocket of hard-core urban deprivation. That is the system which the Minister upholds, and he should be ashamed of it. There must be a Scottish construction industry liaison group—all praise to the English Minister for his initiative in this matter. It is a pity that he does not buck up his Scottish colleagues to follow his example.
These are part of the elements leading towards the better use of Scotland's housing stock. Decent housing and a decent environment should be available to all citizens as a fundamental right. If London has failed to achieve it, a Scottish Government will be happy to take up the task.

6.28 p.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: One cannot hope to solve the housing problems of Kensington in five minutes, so I will confine myself to three specific recommendations. In the long-term expenditure forecast, we see that in April 1966, the comparison of the dwellings and the number of households showed an absolute shortage of 100,000 dwellings. By the end of 1974, there was a gross surplus of 700,000 dwellings. Yet we still have overcrowding, slum conditions, and homelessness. The continuation of bad housing in face of a surplus of 700,000 dwellings in the country at


large is a blight on our society. I realise that many of these houses are not in the right place or may not be suitable; but something can be done when the existing housing stock is obviously enough.
My first recommendation is that we should look again at the grants for conversions and improvement. Many people on both sides of the House are nervous about giving a large conversion grant to an owner who then immediately disposes of his property and appears to be pocketing the grant. Grants should be seen as loans, because the rates rise, and over a period of time the local authority recovers, through higher rates, what has been paid in grant. Why not make that into a fact and offer a loan system for improvements, so that landlords who wish to improve properties and then market them can have a source of finance which will encourage them to go ahead with the conversion of improvement scheme?
Second, I repeat my conviction that a new form of tenure to help home seekers seeking short-term accommodation is seriously needed. I do not know why the Labour Party is advancing a range of schemes for social ownership and experiments in joint ownership but has this doctrinaire approach to the private rented sector. There may be three good reasons but they are not final ones.
One is that the Labour Party wants everyone to have accommodation of a decent standard. Of course, we understand that. The Labour Party wants everyone to get a housing subsidy and feels that the municipal system offers that opportunity. And the Labour Party reflects that the private sector is not always satisfactory. Indeed it is not, but it is not always unsatisfactory, either, particularly for people who are looking for short-term accommodation, as are many single people and young couples in central London. The Labour Party accepts the owner-occupier as a provider of private short-term accommodation but rejects private provision of other dwellings to let. This, I consider, is not a logical stand.
Shorthold tenure—something on the lines of the system that I embodied in a Bill I introduced in the last Session and hope to be allowed to introduce again in the present Session—could meet a real need if the premises were subject to local authority inspection, with which I am

quite prepared to agree; if the legal rights and obligations of the parties were clear; and the rent were within reasonable reach.
In the private rented sector there were in 1974, we read, still 3,261,000 dwellings. The Minister again and again makes the point that the private rented sector is in decline, but if there are still 3 million dwellings in the private rented sector he will not see the elimination of it all at once. It is natural that it should be declining when we consider the amount of money we put into subsidising home ownership and also into council tenure, which are forms of occupancy in competition with the private rented sector. I believe that we should seek to correct the deficiencies of private tenure and not try to eliminate it altogether for doctrinal reasons.
In the Housing Finance Act 1972 the idea was introduced of a rent allowance for tenants in the private sector, but only some 400,000 people are, I believe, drawing their rent allowances—that is, other than people on supplementary benefit. That is only about a quarter, at most, of those who are eligible.
I should like, therefore, to make a third specific suggestion. It is that eligibility for a rent allowance should be calculated through the income tax system and not by local authority tests of means. I am advised that it would not be difficult for people to return in their tax, or to get their employers to return in their tax statements, the nature of the tenure of their accommodation and what they pay in rent. The rest of the calcuations could be done without too much difficulty by machinery.
If we were successful in bringing all the eligible people into the net we might then find that almost every household in the country, in one way or another, would be getting some kind of housing subsidy. People would either be getting a council house subsidy, or mortgage interest relief, or they might be getting rent allowance or a housing allowance through supplementary benefit. There are also the people who are benefiting from the option mortgage scheme. The national insurance system contains a hidden householder's allowance, as I have often pointed out, which for pensioners at the moment amounts to £5·40 per week. In the tax


system there is also the personal allowance of £4·50 per week to every head of household, which might be considered a contribution towards household costs as well, in particular towards rent.
There is room for a reorganising genius of Napoleonic capacity in the housing subsidy field. I should certainly like to see a housing allowance as a tax credit. That may be rather futuristic, but the Minister could still make an immediate contribution by seeking a genuinely nonpartisan housing policy. If he cares about homelessness, slum conditions and overcrowding, that is what he will do.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: I have some comments to make concerning local authority housing. I think the House will agree that whatever the record of succeeding Governments has been in housing it still remains a tremendous problem in our society.
I do not think that merely stating the record of the previous Government is of itself a sufficiently positive way in which to tackle the housing problem. No matter how justified those figures may be, the problem facing the Government is to determine, first, what faults have been made in housing policy and, second, what steps are required to remedy those faults and bring about a situation in which house building, in the end, in no matter what form, will meet the needs of those who are desperately waiting for houses.
The Minister's figures prove conclusively what local authorities have done to meet the housing challenge facing society. Had it not been for the contribution made by local authorities in the provision of houses for rent, the situation obviously would be a good deal worse than it is today.
The local authorities, through their building programmes, have been able over the years to meet the needs of those who would otherwise have had to try to meet them through the normal market forces. I do not think that there will be any dramatic change in that situation in the foreseeable future.
We were talking not long ago of the economic and social changes which have taken place in our society, and there has been reference this afternoon to a changed

situation in housing, to higher incentives, and so forth. The economic situation has changed considerably in recent years, but it would appear that there is still to be a great deal of reliance upon the public sector and local authorities in the provision of houses. We have to see whether local authorities are getting value for money in terms of their housing provision. The reports from the various conurbations have proved that in many cases local authorities are not getting the best value from those in private enterprise who construct the housing. Evidence of this has been given here earlier this afternoon.
I have a similar situation in Liverpool, on the Netherley estate, in my constituency, in connection with which I asked a Question today. We have to examine very closely the sort of housing standards being provided by private enterprise to local authorities. It is essential for the Secretary of State and the Minister to take urgent and positive steps to deal with the inferior standards of many of these builders. The Netherley estate has proved to be an absolute tragedy. There are structural defects, amounting to many thousands of pounds. The tenants of the affected properties suffer as a consequence, and their lives have been made a misery by the inferior building standards prevailing on the estate.
I do not want to develop that argument further except to say that if we are to continue, through local authorities and the other agencies that have ben mentioned, to tackle housing problems on the principle of bringing housing into social ownership, we must be careful to see that standards are not reduced. We must avoid the dangers of producing substandard buildings which cause problems for tenants and local authorities. In spite of what has been said by the Opposition about the public sector it will continue to meet the main demand by working-class people for accommodation.
If we are to have continuity in our building programme and to tackle housing needs vigorously, as we did during the war, we need consistency in the building industry and in our policy. We cannot have that unless we take into account the need for a national building agency. Without such an agency, housing will be subjected to market forces and the political convulsions that take place from time


to time. The only way forward is to set up an agency which would provide continuity of responsibility for a long-term programme as set out in Government policy.
The building industry suffers dramatically from the convulsions that periodically occur in it. We have a ludicrous situation, with the stockpiling of building materials that ought to be under public ownership. There are thousands of unemployed construction workers at a time when people are desperately seeking homes. Government policy must come to terms with the elementary problem of bringing these resources together to ensure the production of a building programme aimed at solving our problems. I hope that the Minister will take account of the points that I have raised.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. David Lane: Looking back to the Second Reading debate on the Homes Bill on 20th February I feel sad that the Government seem so adamant against immediate action. I am glad that we have had this chance to return briefly to the problem today.
There is growing public concern over the scandalous waste of good, usable accommodation. The Government have asked for evidence of the extent to which rented accommodation has been taken off the market as a result of the Rent Act 1974. I have sent the Minister one dossier about our experience in Cambridge, which suggests that the reduction is about 20 per cent. I am about to send him a second dossier of individual cases all over the country which have come to my notice as a result of the debate on the Homes Bill. I do not have time to quote particular examples now.
I ask the Minister to take these cases seriously and look at the picture as a whole. It has come about not merely as a result of the Rent Act but because of the adverse effects of capital gains tax, about which we hope something will be done in the Budget, whoever introduces it.
On 20th February the Under-Secretary had to be very cautious in his response. He said that piecemeal solutions can lead to more anomalies. I believe that he and the whole Government are being overcautious. We cannot wait till 1978, the earliest possible date when the results of

the current review of the Rent Act will be put into legislative form. Let the Government take interim steps now to ease the situation. If they persist in their relative inaction the nation will conclude that they are showing not wisdom but obstinacy.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Although the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) was short it was very much to the point. I am sorry that we have lost an hour or more of the afternoon and have had to cut our debate short. What we have heard has been interesting. I know that others of my hon. Friends had points they would have liked to have raised.
I am also sorry about the tone of the Minister's speech in reply to the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). My hon. Friend referred to lack of monitoring by the Department of the Environment and the evidence from accommodation officers at universities. The Minister did not face up to the consequences of the Rent Act. Everyone is agreed that we are not making the best use of our housing. The results of this can be seen in home-lessness, in the evil aspects of squatting, and the decaying property which exists in far too great a quantity. At Eastbourne on 20th November the Secretary of State said that the crude surplus of homes over households was well over 500,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) reinforced this point. It is clear that, in addition to this surplus, there is a surplus of probably well over 500,000 empty properties in the country.
Obviously, there is a variety of reasons for this surplus. Some of the properties are in the wrong place; some property is necessarily vacant because people are moving about all the time; but some of this non-occupation is unnecessary. I have no doubt that disincentives and discouragement to the private sector are the main problem. Much housing is under-occupied. This is certainly partly due to artificially low rents. The result is that there is no financial incentive to move to smaller accommodation or alternatively to take in tenants as lodgers. The problem of under-use of our housing stock would be serious at any time.


In the present public expenditure crisis it is desperately serious.
The White Paper on Public Expenditure may have been defeated last week but its status is a little mysterious today. Yet the problem of public expenditure remains. The Minister utterly ignored this. There has been a huge increase in spending on housing. It amounts to over £1,500 million, at 1975 survey prices, between 1971–72 and 1975–76, but there has been no remotely comparable improvement in the supply of housing. The villain is partly the use of housing subsidies as an ingredient of incomes policy and partly the soaring cost of public sector housing—as well as dottinesses like municipalisation.
We have to recognise that this increase in the cost of housing in public expenditure terms cannot go on. Even the Government have seen this. The fact is that there has to be a £300 million reduction in key sector local authority capital expenditure between this year and 1976–77. That figure is clearly set out in Table 3.5 of the White Paper on Public Expenditure.
Although the Minister has been trying to dodge these facts he did give some relevant points in a letter he wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and which was published in Hansard on 15th March. They included the facts that the average cost of a new local authority dwelling today, including land, is about £12,000, and that the subsidy in capital cost subsidy terms alone is about £875 per house. In addition, there are other subsidies and there is the rate contribution. We also have to face the fact that housing association housing has become pretty costly. The same letter from the Minister stated that the average grant per dwelling for housing association nouses is now £8,000. There is also some further subsidy in some cases towards rents.
That is the picture. The cost of providing housing today through what the Minister engagingly calls "social ownership" is very expensive, and it is not right that society should have to bear this heavy burden.
In the circumstances, it is clear that we have to make the best use of what we have. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and others of my hon. Friends

have demonstrated formidably today that we are not doing so. I accept that the Government have moved some way in this direction and that the Secretary of State acknowledged in his speech at Eastbourne last November that there is a real problem. I accept that in response to sustained pressure from the Opposition the improvement grant limit has been rather belatedly raised, although I gather that the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller) regarded that as purely a piece of gimmickry. I also recognise that the Government are trying to encourage lodgers in council houses. I accept that the Government are also taking a more sensible approach to the balance between clearance and improvement, although many Socialist authorities—Wandsworth, for example—are still committed to bulldozer Socialism. I also note that the Secretary of State has even said that he wants to ease the passing of the private rented sector.
The fact remains that the Government's policy is still utterly perverse. Municipalisation is going ahead. The figure for 1976–77 is £175 million. It is a very expensive way of acquiring properties which then become council houses let at heavily subsidised rents. Instead of inveighing against landlords and potential landlords as greedy men and so on, as the Secretary of State was still doing at Eastbourne and as other Government supporters have done, it is far better to encourage them to put housing on the market for letting at fair rents. Kicking people is not the best way of encouraging them.
We have also to accept that housing associations, however valuable they are in many ways, are still an expensive way of doing what landlords might do of their own accord and largely at their own expense if they were given a sensible system in which to operate. All this points towards the resuscitation of the private rented sector.
The Minister spent a great deal of time telling us about the long-term decline in the private rented sector. Everyone knows that that has happened. It is as familiar a statistic as one could find. We know that the figure was more than 90 per cent. before the First World War, and what it has come down to, but now we have to consider how to house people who


are homeless today. We need firmly to check this long-term decline in the private rented sector. I do not want to exaggerate. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) wanted to find new ways of helping the private rented sector but that he did not expect to see it expand in the future. That may be true. Perhaps I am a little more "bullish" about it.
However, I do not think that we shall see massive new investment coming into the building of homes to let for some time to come. Instead, I believe that we should look at the facts of existing underused stock and find sensible ways of bringing it back into the market. We should stop what we are doing at the moment, which is to discourage people letting off a floor or a room, or owning a house or two for investment purposes, or letting a flat above a shop which they do not want for themselves, or taking in students.
What are the Government doing about this?

Mr. Lawrence: Nothing.

Mr. Raison: I was about to say "precious little". My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) says "Nothing". But I am a little more kind-hearted, perhaps.
We have been told again and again that there is a review of the Rent Acts under way. According to the Secretary of State, this will start within and follow on from the main housing finance review. That sounds like one of those definitions of transubstantiation which one tried to understand at school. It is clear that there has been too little sense of urgency from the Government, both today and over the last year or two, and there are still far too many signs of in-built prejudice. We cannot wait. People are homeless now. Action could be taken, and it should be.
I accept two points. First, I believe that the end of the distinction between furnished and unfurnished tenants is sensible. It is much better to look at forms of tenancy and so on rather than trying to preserve a distinction which was largely an artificial one and which led to all kinds of wangles, anomalies, and so on. Secondly, we are not trying to abolish the idea of security of tenure for the

ordinary tenant. That is not our objective. There are still plenty of other steps which we can take to make housing more readily available.
The answer to our housing problems is not more restrictions and controls but, oddly enough, more housing. That is the way to provide choice, which we on this side of the House want, though I notice that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) was not very interested in it. It is also the way to deal with the famous abuses of the wicked landlord. There is one way to get away from Rachmanism and its alternate versions. It is to have enough housing and to stop people getting into the position where they can be pushed round by landlords.
It is because private letting produces such a poor return and so many disadvantages that landlords are keen to regain possession so that they can sell their houses. This debate, and the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge a week or two ago on his very sensible Bill, has offered the Government plenty of suggestions for steps which they could take if only they had the will to do so.
One of these is the idea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington of shorthold. This is a form of fixed-term letting between willing parties. I do not suggest that this should become the routine method of regulating long-term tenancies, but there are plenty of cases where there are two people very happy that one should rent a house from the other. It is nonsense that that should be impossible. We have also had references to the North Wiltshire scheme, and I am glad that the Government are sympathetic to that.
Then we have to ease the reoccupation conditions for owners. We have especially to end the provision that owners seeking to reoccupy their own houses have to prove greater need. If we can do that, we can get some sense back into this area.
We should make it possible in shared accommodation to give second and subsequent fixed-term lettings without conferring security. The fact is that on this point the present legislation positively encourages evictions, and that is nonsense.
Again, we should guarantee repossession of flats above shops where the owners wish to regain them, perhaps if they wish to sell their businesses. We should also end the present situation in relation to student accommodation so that their security should expire, anyway, when their normal courses have been completed. These are all practical steps, but security is only part of the problem.
The one remark of the Minister that I thought eminently sensible was that a fair return was an essential part of this. Here we must press on with decontrol. The present right to add 12·5 per cent. of the cost of repairs to the rent is obviously inadequate. After all, there is a rent allowance available to take care of people who might otherwise suffer hardship.
Then we have to make fair rents really fair. The House has heard that the British Property Federation said that the net return from unfurnished regulated tenancies was 1·8 per cent. and that that from controlled tenancies was 0·65 per cent. It is nonsense to have that kind of return. The triennial review has proved increasingly inadequate. Whether we should move to an annual review or to some form of indexing is a matter for argument, but something has to be done. We should also convert rent officers' discretion to consider fair returns for the landlord to something more powerful.
Another idea which has been put forward and which is worth thinking about is relief on capital gains tax which at present applies to rented property.
This has been a useful, if truncated, debate. The Government's response has been wholly inadequate. We had a dismal response to the Homes Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and a dismal response today. I call on the House to condemn the Government's policy in the Lobby tonight.

7.0 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I agree with the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) that in many respects this has been a very reasonable and helpful debate. During the time I have been associated with the great issue of housing, I have found it a subject that can be most frustrating. However, it is basic to the quality of life of our people and

therefore I am interested that so many hon. Members, especially Opposition Members, feel that the answer lies in legislation. As the hon. Gentleman said in one of the better passages of his speech, the answer is the provision of more adequate accommodation.
If legislation could solve any problem it would certainly have solved the housing problem. We have had more legislation about rents, housing, and so on, in the past 50 years than about any other subject. Therefore, I do not apologise for saying that the housing finance review, and the Rent Acts review that will follow, will take time. This is not a matter in which there are any quick and easy answers.
What kind of debate would we have had if the 1974 Act were not on the statute book? The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) indicated that that Act was responsible for almost every problem connected with housing. What would the Opposition have blamed then for the increasing numbers of homeless families being evicted from furnished accommodation? Surely we have already seen what happens in a free market? The swiftest decline in the private rented sector came in the years following the Rent Act 1957. Far from being encouraged by that freedom to go on letting, landlords simply took the opportunity of a free market to get rid of their tenants—I need hardly remind the House what methods some of them used—and then to sell their property.
We are seeking to implement a coherent set of policies which will contain the rate of decline in the private sector and will be fair both to landlords and to those tenants who either want to remain in the private sector or are for the present trapped there unwillingly. This is the aim of the review of the Rent Acts that we shall be carrying out over the coming months. In reply to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) I point out that it is hoped that that body will report in the middle of next year.
We often hear that the Rent Acts do not allow landlords sufficient ease of repossession—much has been made of that today—and that delays are too long, yet it is a fact that 96 per cent. of landlords who apply to the courts are granted the orders they seek. The


average time to get to court appears to be about six weeks, and even this can be halved by a request for an expedited hearing. Again, we think it timely to review the workings of the provisions concerned and, as I said during the debate on the Homes Bill, the case for extending or adapting the grounds for possession will also be looked at. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) about regaining possession of the residential part of mixed premises will obviously be one candidate for examination in this context.
While I am speaking about the review, I think I should reiterate to the House certain views that we have about security of tenure. I can make it clear now that we see no likelihood, as a result of the review, of fundamental changes in our approach to security of tenure, above all for existing tenants in their homes. We are firmly committed to this principle and we regard it as of overriding importance in any humane housing policy.
In the future the enlarged public sector will obviously have to play a leading part in the solution of current private sector problems. The solution to the problems in the private sector must lie outside it. Therefore, we want the public sector to become flexible enough in the type of accommodation it builds and in the style of management it uses to cater for a much larger proportion of single people and couples, and for those who need to move with their jobs—groups which have traditionally been housed in the private sector.
I take on board what the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) said about the people whom we want to live in the inner cities, and so on. I assure him that the pamphlet published by the group with which he is associated will be carefully considered. I, too, thought that his speech was a helpful contribution to the debate. Apparently Opposition Members see no reason why these people should not continue to rely on the private landlord, and save the public purse. There are two answers to that argument. First, the sector is too small—hardly existing in some parts of the country—and, as I have said before, I do not believe that even a return to free market conditions will produce an increase in the number of lettings. In our stress areas in par

ticular, such a move could bring about a quite disastrous decline.
Secondly, a level of rent which provides an adequate incentive for the landlord to remain in business and to keep his property in good repair is bound also to be a rent which which many people just cannot afford.
Whatever the hopes of Members on both sides of the House may have been, we must acknowledge that the rent allowance system, despite greatly increased spending on publicity, is still far from reaching everyone in need. Of course, we shall continue to study ways of improving take-up, but until we have made considerable strides on this it would be idle to pretend that rent allowances are an effective way of meeting the needs of all poorer tenants.
I turn to ways of putting our existing stock to better use, and remind the House of the steps that the Government have already taken to translate this policy into action. This is where the real solution to our problems lies.
First, there is the change of emphasis from wholesale clearance and redevelopment to the encouragement of the gradual renewal of older housing. I was interested in what the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight said about certain cases in the North-East. If he sends me details I assure him that I shall consider them very carefully indeed. We are following this policy by issuing new guidelines on the relative costs and benefits of clearance and improvement and by the coherent and rational allocation of funds for the improvement of council housing.
A major feature of our housing policy is to prevent older housing from drifting into such a poor state that demolition seems the only answer. My right hon. Friend is therefore keeping a close watch on the improvement grant situation in case it should turn out that the changes introduced in 1974 have been too restrictive. He has already announced one relaxation. We discovered that the existing rateable value limits for owner-occupied properties were discouraging the conversion of large houses into flats, which is the kind of scheme we believe should be encouraged. We have therefore just announced a doubling of the limits for this type of scheme. But the overall position is under close scrutiny and if


we decide that further action is necessary to step up the rate of private sector improvement work we shall take it.
I turn now to the public sector. Here, too, we found that during 1972 and 1973 local authority expenditure on improvements to council-owned housing had improved quite dramatically. The following figures speak for themselves—all at 1975 survey prices: in 1970–71 local authorities in England invested £97 million in improving their own houses; in 1971–72 the figure was £182 million, in 1972–73, £315 million, in 1973–74, £402 million, and in 1974–75, £395 million.
Moreover, evidence collected by the Department indicated that quite a substantial proportion of the moneys was being spent on work such as modernisation of inter-war council estates, which although no doubt very desirable could not be made to rank very highly in our scheme of priorities.
For this reason the Government took power in what is now Section 105 of the 1974 Act to control authorities' expenditure in this area. The purpose of Section 105 is twofold: to get some kind of overall limit on the work and to ensure that the resources available are used where the need is greatest. Expenditure under this heading is estimated at about £270 million for 1975–76 and will be £300 million in 1976–77, following the Chancellor's announcement of additional provision for this work under the counter-unemployment programme. All these figures are at 1975 survey prices, so the House will see that although there has been some reduction from the peak reached in 1973–74, the provision for this important work is still running at over three times its level in 1970.
Closely associated with all this are programmes of acquisition and improvement of existing houses by authorities. The Government see municipalisation of existing houses as a very important part of their programme for dealing with poor quality houses, particularly where the poor housing is associated with the decline of the private rented sector. We are convinced that in those areas of housing stress in which many of the poor quality houses belong to private landlords who cannot or will not spend money on improving them, the best solution is often for a local authority or

housing association to acquire the houses, improve them and then retain them as tenanted property, thus ensuring a continued availability of housing available for letting.
As proof of the importance that the Government attach to this programme, the public expenditure provision for acquisition of existing houses by local authorities is £175 million, compared with estimated expenditure in the current year of £120 million. For this reason, too, the categories of priority expenditure under Section 105 give high place to work on acquired property.
In order to encourage authorities to continue with their programmes of acquisition, the Department has today issued a circular setting out the arrangements for municipalisation which will apply during the coming financal year. Subject to certain limitations, authorities are now free to acquire any houses in housing action areas, general improvement areas and priority neighbourhoods, whether the houses are tenanted, owner-occupied or vacant. They also now have consent to acquire any houses in other areas of housing shortage which have been vacant for more than two months.
There are also new and more favourable arrangements for acquisition of properties for use as hostels. In addition to all this, authorities are always free to come to the Department with proposals for other acquisitions which do not come within the general consent categories, and in dealing with such applications the Department will seek to be as sympathetic as possible, particularly where the acquisition will help to meet the needs of the homeless or secure the improvement or renovation of dilapidated or obsolescent houses.
Hon. Members have spoken of the need to take action to bring empty property back into use, particularly where the owner would like to let his property for a limited time but wants to be certain of getting it back when he needs the accommodation for himself. I see great scope here for local authorities, housing associations and the private landlord to come together in arrangements of mutual benefit to provide more housing more quickly and at little cost.
The kind of schemes I have in mind are those pioneered by the North Wiltshire District Council and since taken


up by a number of local authorities, under which the authority takes up a tenancy or lease on privately-owned property and sublets to homeless families or people on the waiting list.
We have already said that if it becomes clear that we are not making firm headway against the problem of empty houses, particularly in housing stress areas, we shall not hesitate to consider introducing new and realistic powers to deal with the situation.
As a Government we are pursuing a range of policies that we believe are both socially sensitive and realistically geared to the complex of problems that we face, and which represent the best

use of the financial and physical resources at our disposal. The solution to our problems needs a painstaking and detailed approach—there is no other way. There is still much to be done, but we intend to continue firmly with what we have begun. We believe that such policies will commend themselves to all who believe that decent homes for all our people must remain one of our highest priorities. I therefore ask the House to reject the motion.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 285.

Division No. 91.]
AYES
[7.15 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
James, David


Alison, Michael
Eyre, Reginald
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Jessel, Toby


Arnold, Tom
Fairgrieve, Russell
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Farr, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Awdry, Daniel
Fell, Anthony
Jopling, Michael


Baker, Kenneth
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Banks, Robert
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Beith, A. J.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony


Bell, Ronald
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kilfedder, James


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Forman, Nigel
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Benyon, W.
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fox, Marcus
Kirk, Sir Peter


Biffen, John
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Biggs-Davison, John
Freud, Clement
Knox, David


Blaker, Peter
Fry, Peter
Lamont, Norman


Body, Richard
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Lane, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Lawrence, Ivan


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Lawson, Nigel


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Glyn, Dr Alan
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Brotherton, Michael
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Goodhew, Victor
Lloyd, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Goodlad, Alastair
Loveridge, John


Buck, Antony
Gorst, John
Luce, Richard


Budgen, Nick
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bulmer, Esmond
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
McCrindle, Robert


Burden, F. A.
Gray, Hamish
Macfarlane, Neil


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
MacGregor, John


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Grist, Ian
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Churchill, W. S.
Grylls, Michael
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hall, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Madel, David


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marten, Neil


Clegg, Walter
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mather, Carol


Cockcroft, John
Hannam, John
Maude, Angus


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Cope, John
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mawby, Ray


Cordle, John H.
Hastings, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Cormack, Patrick
Havers, Sir Michael
Mayhew, Patrick


Corrie, John
Hawkins, Paul
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Costain, A. P.
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Critchley, Julian
Hicks, Robert
Mills, Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Higgins, Terence L.
Miscampbell, Norman


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Holland, Philip
Moate, Roger


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hooson, Emlyn
Monro, Hector


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hordern, Peter
Montgomery, Fergus


Drayson, Burnaby
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Moore, John (Croydon C)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Howell, David (Guildford)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Durant, Tony
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morgan, Geraint


Dykes, Hugh
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hurd, Douglas
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Elliott, Sir William
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Mudd, David


Emery, Peter
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Neave, Airey




Nelson, Anthony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Newton, Tony
Royle, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Normanton, Tom
Sainsbury, Tim
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Nott, John
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Townsend, Cyril D.


Onslow, Cranley
Scott, Nicholas
Trotter, Neville


Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Scott-Hopkins, James
Tugendhat, Christopher


Page, John (Harrow West)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Pardoe, John
Shepherd, Colin
Viggers, Peter


Pattie, Geoffrey
Shersby, Michael
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Penbaligon, David
Silvester, Fred
Wakeham, John


Percival, Ian
Sims, Roger
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Sinclair, Sir George
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Pink, R. Bonner
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wall, Patrick


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Walters, Dennis


Prior, Rt Hon James
Speed, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Spence, John
Watt, Hamish


Raison, Timothy
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Weatherill, Bernard


Rathbone, Tim
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Wells, John


Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Sproat, lain
Welsh, Andrew


Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Stainton, Keith
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wiggin, Jerry


Reid, George
Stanley, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Winterton, Nicholas


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Ridsdale, Julian
Stokes, John
Younger, Hon George


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stradling Thomas, J.



Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Tapsell, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Mr. Cecil Parkinson.


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Tebbit, Norman





NOES


Abse, Leo
Corbett, Robin
Ginsburg, David


Allaun, Frank
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Golding, John


Anderson, Donald
Crawshaw, Richard
Gould, Bryan


Archer, Peter
Cronin, John
Gourlay, Harry


Armstrong, Ernest
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Graham, Ted


Ashley, Jack
Cryer, Bob
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Grocott, Bruce


Atkinson, Norman
Davidson, Arthur
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hardy, Peter


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Bates, Alf
Deakins, Eric
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Bean, R. E.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Heffer, Eric S.


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Delargy, Hugh
Hooley, Frank


Bidwell, Sydney
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Horam, John


Bishop, E. S.
Dempsey, James
Howell, Rt Hon Denis


Boardman, H.
Dormand, J. D.
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Huckfield, Les


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Bradley, Tom
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Edge, Geoff
Hunter, Adam


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Buchan, Norman
English, Michael
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Buchanan, Richard
Ennals, David
Janner, Greville


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Campbell, Ian
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Canavan, Dennis
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
John, Brynmor


Cant, R. B.
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Carmichael, Neil
Flannery, Martin
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Carter, Ray
Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cartwright, John
Ford, Ben
Judd, Frank


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Forrester, John
Kaufman, Gerald


Clemitson, Ivor
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Kelley, Richard


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Kerr, Russell


Cohen, Stanley
Freeson, Reginald
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Coleman, Donald
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Kinnock, Neil


Concannon, J, D.
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lambie, David


Conian, Bernard
George, Bruce
Lamborn, Harry


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Gilbert, Dr John
Lamond, James




Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Padley, Walter
Stott, Roger


Lead bitter, Ted
Palmer, Arthur
Strang, Gavin


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
Park, George
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Parker, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Parry, Robert
Swain, Thomas


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pavitt, Laurie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Lipton, Marcus
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Litterick, Tom
Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Loyden, Eddie
Perry, Ernest
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Luard, Evan
Phipps, Dr Colin
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Tierney, Sydney


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Prescott, John
Tinn, James


McCartney, Hugh
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Tomlinson, John


McElhone, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)
Torney, Tom


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Radice, Giles
Tuck, Raphael


Mackenzie, Gregor
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Urwin, T. W.


Mackintosh, John P.
Richardson, Miss Jo
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


McNamara, Kevin
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Madden, Max
Robinson, Geoffrey
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Magee, Bryan
Roderick, Caerwyn
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Ward, Michael


Marks, Kenneth
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Watkins, David


Marquand, David
Rooker, J. W.
Watkinson, John


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Roper, John
Weetch, Ken


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Rose, Paul B.
Weitzman, David


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Wellbeloved, James


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rowlands, Ted
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Meacher, Michael
Sandelson, Neville
White, James (Pollok)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Sedgemore, Brian
Whitehead, Phillip


Millan, Bruce
Selby, Harry
Whitlock, William


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Molloy, William
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Moonman, Eric
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Williams, Sir Thomas


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Sillars, James
Wilson, William (Coventry SF.)


Moyle, Roland
Silverman, Julius
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Skinner, Dennis
Woodall, Alec


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Small, William
Woof, Robert


Newens, Stanley
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Oakes, Gordon
Snaps, Peter
Young, David (Bolton E)


Ogden, Eric
Spearing, Nigel



O'Halloran, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Stallard, A. W.



Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Ovenden, John
Stoddart, David
Mr. Thomas Cox


Owen, Dr David
Storehouse, Rt Hon John

Question accordingly negatived.

BRITISH RAIL (COMMUTER SERVICES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stallard.]

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: In this short debate we are concerned to raise the plight of rail commuters. We raise their plight at this stage for one very good reason. The Government are currently preparing their review of transport policy, which they promise will be one of the most important statements on transport policy for a decade. We shall wait to see whether that is true. But clearly if the results come anywhere near to matching the claims, they will have an important effect on railway policy. I hope that we shall have the privilege of the attendance of the Minister for Transport in this debate so that he can hear what is said.
The only effect of the Consultative Document has been uncertainty. Rumour has followed rumour. There have been rumours about services and manpower being cut and commuters having to face even further fare increases. The result has been uncertainty, and that uncertainty has been increased by Sir Richard Marsh's announcement on Monday that he does not intend to seek a second term of office as Chairman of the British Railways Board.
I believe that there is now a feeling on both sides of the House that this period of uncertainty must be brought to an end. What is needed now as a matter of urgency is the production of the Government's plans, and within those plans we want the position and problems of commuters clearly recognised.
The transport debate is all too often dominated by the lobbies. We hear the conflicting arguments of both the rail and road lobbies. I do not dispute that they have a legitimate and necessary point of view to put forward. But we should never forget that the crucial people in this debate are not the lobbyists but the customers and the taxpayers. Their interests are paramount.
Certainly, in terms of rail travel, one of the most important consumer groups

is the commuters. In the South-East alone, nearly 500,000 commuters travel into London each day, a movement which is duplicated relatively in other major cities such as Birmingham, Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool. For the commuter, travel is a matter not of pleasure but of necessity. He travels in order to work. So the commuter has two major concerns. First, as a traveller, a consumer, he wants efficient, low-cost travel. Second, it should never be forgotten that, as a taxpayer, he has an interest in ensuring that the public subsidy is kept to an inescapable minimum.
May I again draw attention, to the fact that the Minister for Transport is not in his place to hear this debate? He has had long notice of the debate and it is discourteous to the House for the Minister not to be here to hear the arguments. I hope that the Under-Secretary can assure us that he will be coming to the Chamber, but if we are talking in terms of the Consultative Document—the Minister has at last arrived. He is welcome, but he is very late.
I shall seek to deal with both of the points I mentioned in turn. The commuter is now paying dearly for his journeys and this is causing much genuine hardship. Since June 1974, there have been no fewer than four fare increases, amounting to an overall rise of 68 per cent. The chief reason is not difficult to discover. We can argue about the effects of price restraint, but we should not forget that the biggest factor has been general inflation. The Government's delay and their failure to tackle inflation have cost the commuter dear. He has been left as one of the main casualties of inflation, which has also put at risk future employment prospects on the railways as more and more people examine alternative forms of travel or even alternative jobs.
Anyone who doubts the effect of inflation has only to read the annual report of the British Railways Board. This shows that, in 1972, costs rose by 10 per cent. and in 1973 by 6 per cent. But in 1974, costs rose by no less than 33 per cent. and last year the same inflationary pressure continued. The result, in a labour-intensive industry, has been sharp fare increases.
The House should remember how much commuters now pay to travel to work. By the end of this month, when the new fare increases come into effect, the commuter from Bishop's Stortford, Guildford or Tonbridge will be paying over £360 a year for a second-class monthly season ticket. The commuter from Southend will be paying about £400, from Brighton over £475 and from Winchester over £525.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: The commuter from Clacton will pay £500 second-class.

Mr. Fowler: I am most grateful for that information. I chose my examples simply because they are the examples given by British Rail of the effect of the new fares.
On top of that, the commuter will be paying the costs of getting from the station to the office by Underground services or bus. So even on the most conservative estimate, the commuter from those stations will be paying between £8 and £12 a week purely in travel costs, and it must come straight from disposable income. That is an enormous burden, which falls most heavily, perhaps, on the young married couple with young children who have moved out of London not only to be able to afford a home at all but also in an effort to find the right conditions in which their children can grow up. So let us remember that behind the cold statistics lie some acute human problems.
Of course, fares are not the only problem of the commuter. The wear and tear of commuting is considerable. The other day, a senior figure in British Rail confessed that if he carried cattle in the same conditions as he carried some commuters, he would be prosecuted. I thought that he was exaggerating, but after checking I find that it is true that, under the Transport of Animals Order, animals have a legal right to an adequate supply of fresh air and that another provision prevents overcrowding. Many commuters would argue that they are deprived of both rights. The commuter is now paying record fares and sometimes travelling in what we would all agree are conditions of extreme discomfort.
Concern, as my hon. Friends will confirm, is high. It would be a profound mistake for the Government to believe that this concern is confined to what

they insist upon regarding as the affluent middle-classes. It is certainly true that those in the middle income groups are concerned—as well they might be, caught between the double thrust of record taxation and record inflation—but their concern is shared not only by other commuters who are by no means wealthy but by those who work on the railways.

Mr. Les Huckfield: Tell us what the answer is.

Mr. Fowler: I will, if the hon. Gentleman will stay to listen.
Their concern has been heightened not only by the extent of the latest fare increases but also by the manner. The commuter is not seeking to be treated as a special case exempt from increases affecting other rail passengers but he has a right to expect that he will not be singled out for especially harsh treatment. These fears have been heightened by the latest increases. As a result of those increases, the inter-city traveller will pay between 5 and 12 per cent. more, while the commuter will pay up to 17½ per cent. more.
British Rail makes no secret of the fact that this is not because of any differential, or because costs have risen significantly higher on commuter services. That is not the argument, as Sir Richard Marsh would be the first to agree. The increases have been worked out on the basis of what the market will bear. Intercity demand is elastic; commuter demand is inelastic. In other words, the commuter to all intents and purposes, and apparently with the acceptance of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield), is seen as a captive market and treated in that way—this is the significant point—by a monopoly supplier. The commuter will find all kinds of obstacles in his way if he tries to use alternative means of transport.
So the commuter fears—those fears should be recognised here—that he will not only be clobbered but be clobbered time and time again.

Mr. Ronald Bell: This is an important point. Did my hon. Friend see that, in his evidence to the Select Committee yesterday, Sir Richard Marsh said that commuter traffic had fallen by 17 per cent. since the fares


went up, which suggests that commuters are being driven to find alternatives?

Mr. Fowler: That is an important point and I think that the House will look forward to my hon. and learned Friend developing it.
To return to what I was saying, in the face of this concern British Rail will and does argue that its remit is to work towards a more viable railway. Of course that is absolutely right and the commuter as taxpayer has a crucial interest in seeing that the current public subsidy of about £500 million a year is reduced.
But it is also fair for the commuter to make two points in reply. First, he has the right to far more exact information about the costs of commuter services. If British Rail's case is that the commuter services are making heavy losses, it should detail them and the ways in which they are compiled.
Secondly, and perhaps even more important, the commuter has the right to say to British Railways, "You tell me that you are making losses but will you also prove to me that you are doing everything in your power to keep costs to a minimum?" Thirdly, if commuters are to be asked to pay more, they have a right to expect British Railways to do everything in their power to put their own house in order.
I will take those three points in turn. The first is the availability of information. Any commuter service in any country has to face the difficulty inherent in a service of this kind—the need to meet the demand of two short peak periods with resources that are adequate for the peaks but over-generous for the rest of the day. It is certainly not part of my case tonight to suggest that there are easy answers to this question.
The amount of information available on the profitability of the commuter lines—and this was a point made in the last debate that we had on transport policy—is totally inadequate. To some extent this is a result of the 1974 Act which went for blanket subsidy rather than seeking to identify the loss makers. My impression is that such information could be provided at no great effort. It is important, because without such information we have no yardstick. We rely upon generalisations such as the claim

that all commuter lines make losses and need heavy subsidies. However, as Dodgson points out both in his book and in an article which was published two weeks ago in New Society, some commuter services have, at least until very recently, run at a profit. He says:
For example, in 1973, the Liverpool Street/Southend/Clacton group of services earned a surplus of £1,625,000; the Liverpool Street-Cambridge group, £329,000; and the former London, Tilbury and Southend Railway routes, £296,000. These surpluses were equal to 13, 18 and 4 per cent. (respectively) of the services' total revenue. Many of the longer-distance Southern Region services have been profitable too".

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Many commuters have felt somewhat aggrieved at the apparent willingness of British Railways to divulge information to the unions which was exhaustive, apparently, to judge by the leaks, but which was not matched by any similar willingness to give the users of the service such information, who also have a powerful point to make.

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point and underlines the concern felt by all hon. Members for much better information to be provided on this matter. A study that British Railways carried out says that rail subsidies to commuter services are very unevenly distributed with outer suburban services in London and the South-East being only slightly subsidised.
We must ask whether it is inevitable that commuter lines make losses. Until we know the answer to such questions and the detail of that answer, it is impossible to make decisions on subsidies and the rest. I hope that here at any rate there will be agreement on both sides of the House that the Government must give this kind of information in the Consultative Document, not only as an aid to discussion but also as an indispensable aid to decision.
Secondly, British Rail should do everything in its power to provide an efficient and low cost service. It is not in the interests of the railways that the users and those who work on the railways should be in any way divided into warring camps. The true interests of both are very close, for it is only when we have a demonstrably efficient railway that there will be anything like job security. An industry which veers from crisis to crisis as it


becomes more and more dependent upon public subsidy can never provide that security.
It is also right to say—and it should be said—that the kind of unofficial action that we saw at the end of last week helps absolutely no one.

Mr. Les Huckfield: Absolute rubbish.

Mr. Fowler: To strike against cuts in service can only lose revenue and necessitate further cuts in services. Not only is immediate revenue lost but also the future custom of the man who has been let down once too often, as well as the good will of the travelling public. That is an inevitable effect of unofficial action. The point was made by the Passenger Action Confederation—itself formed as a result of the concern there is—that:
unofficial action can only put commuters against the unions
or, as the Evening News put it,
it represents one more nail in the coffin.
Therefore, there are no easy answers but it should not be beyond our power to avoid actions which succeed in making the position worse than it is at present.
I want to suggest three areas where the Government should examine closely their railway policy as it affects commuters. First, it is clear that if greater efficiency and increased productivity are to be the goals, there must be the closest examination of overmanning and overstaffing. Everyone is familiar with the points about restrictive practices and double-manning, but just because they are familiar territory is no reason why they should be ignored. What is sometimes forgotten is the argument advanced by Stewart Joy, a former chief economist of the British Railways Board, that, since Beeching, general administration expenses have risen from 10 per cent. of the railways' working expenses in 1963 to 15 per cent. today when, as Joy points out, the trend should be entirely in the opposite direction.

Mr. Les Huckfield: Mr. Les Huckfield rose—

Mr. Fowler: I will give way but I am speaking against the clock.

Mr. Les Huckfield: Will the hon. Gentleman quote some examples of overmanning on the Southern Region, because that is where most of these commuter services are?

Mr. Fowler: The Pryke and Dodgson book and article set them out. I was trying to make the alternative point about the overmanning of staff but I will ask my hon. Friend the Member for Welling-borough (Mr. Fry) to deal with this matter. The hon. Gentleman laughs, and we are glad to see him with us even if he is laughing, but if he is talking about greater efficiency and increased productivity, perhaps when the Under-Secretary of State replies he will define it. The solution does not lie simply in reducing the number working for British Rail.
Secondly, for the commuter services the peak is all-important. Therefore, we must examine schemes for spreading it, for staggered hours and the rest. I appreciate that that is not a new solution but it is important that at this stage of financial crisis it is examined.
Lastly, there is a matter of more general application. It is quite clear that the Government have not succeeded in developing a successful working relationship between themselves and the British Railways Board. Sir Richard Marsh's complaint was always that the Government had not given him a clear or constituent guide of what was required. In his letter to the Secretary of State he complains about:
the total lack of clarity of the Board's objecting.
As he explained the position to me a week or so ago, he wanted to run a business, not a social service. He wanted a clear set of objectives from the Government. The other part of the bargain was that if the Board failed to meet those objectives, heads should roll. Ironically, what has happened is that his head has rolled, albeit with himself as executioner. However, the objectives still remain unclear.
Therefore, in this short debate we do not intend to divide the House but to use the opportunity to express the genuine and real concern felt about this matter in the country. We want to see the commuters' problem dealt with in the Transport Policy Review. If it is not, clearly we shall want to return to this subject. We do not want to gloss over the difficulties of commuter services or to suggest that commuters can have specially preferential treatment. However, we insist that the hundreds of thousands of commuters in this country deserve and should have a fair deal.

7.49 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): I had understood that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) would be starting the debate with a five-minute speech, and I was asked to do a similar thing.
I should like first to take the three points that he mentioned. Overmanning and spreading the peak will be referred to in the Transport Policy Review. The points that the Chairman of British Rail made about working relationships with British Rail apply certainly to both Governments, as does a lack of definition and a lack of policy. However, I should like to point out that the Transport Policy Review that we are undertaking, which will be published next month, is the first review since the previous Labour Government's review in 1968.
The subject of this evening's debate is important. It affects the daily lives of millions of people. I say "millions" because when we talk about commuter services we are concerned not only with the passengers themselves but with their famines and children and, of course, the people who work with them. The frustrations that a passenger can experience on his way to and from work easily spill over into the home and workplace.
I had hoped that we would hear from the hon. Gentleman some positive points for our consideration in the Transport Policy Review, but there has been none. Emphatic speaking is no substitute for proposals.
I propose to be very brief. There are three reasons for this.

Sir Anthony Royle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Marks: Not at present. I shall give way shortly. I have promised to be very brief.
There are three reasons for my being brief. First, we had an Adjournment debate on commuter rail fares as recently as 2nd March. There was not the same attendance. It was held at about 1 a.m. However, I do not wish to take up the time of the House by repeating all that I said on that occasion. Secondly, I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious to speak

in this debate and I think that it is incumbent upon Front Bench spokesmen, therefore, to exercise a self-denying ordinance. Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport will, of course, be winding up the debate.

Sir Anthony Royle: There is one matter that causes concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. That is whether it is possible for the Government to have another look at the possibility of Members of Parliament raising in this Chamber problems affecting commuter traffic which is involved in London Transport. At present Members cannot raise this subject with Ministers in the House at all because London Transport is under the control of the Greater London Council. Will the hon. Gentleman give some thought to methods whereby Members with constituency matters at stake may raise this point with Ministers in the House?

Mr. Marks: I do not think that that is a matter for me, because the procedure on the questioning of nationalised boards and local authorities and their functions is one of long tradition.
The first point I want to make is that the Government are not commuter-bashers. It is no part of our policy or the Railway Board's policy to soak the commuter. We fully recognise that, at this stage at any rate, by far the great majority of rail commuters are ordinary people on ordinary incomes. I say that despite the example quoted by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) on 2nd March. His single example was that of a man on £8,500 a year who travelled first-class from Farn-borough. Many of the people who travel on these trains have no alternative but to commute to work by train.
Secondly, we recognise that some of the rolling stock and the other equipment needed to provide the commuter railways is getting old and sometimes breaks down, causing delay and frustration to passengers. Both we and the Board wish that we could make wholesale and immediate improvements in the quality of all services. Some improvements are being made. I am thinking, for example, about the rebuilding of Blackfriars and London Bridge stations, the Great Northern Suburban Electrification Scheme, the new rolling stock for


the Liverpool Street-Shenfield service and, outside London—and there are railway commuters in other places besides London—the work being done on Merseyside on the Loop and Link, and other areas. But we simply cannot afford to allocate the very substantial additional resources which would be needed to make across-the-board improvements in all commuter services.
We are currently investing, in real terms, more in our railways than at any time since the mid-sixties. The only way that we could raise that level over the next few years would be to find the resources by cutting other programmes. Expenditure on roads has already been cut and will be reduced further over the next few years, as indicated in the Public Expenditure White Paper. However, we cannot afford to allocate substantially more. What this means is that improvements in commuter services are likely to be slower and more selective than the Board and we would have liked.
Having said that, I hope that hon. Members will not overlook the very substantial expenditure which is required every year simply to maintain and renew the existing infrastructure and rolling stock.
My third point concerns commuter rail fares. I dealt with this at length in my reply to the hon. Member for Alder-shot on 2nd March. As I said then, we do realise that these fares increases are biting into family budgets. But fares would have had to go up by much more had it not been for the massive grant of over £300 million which we paid to the passenger system this year.
Despite our economic difficulties, we are not cutting our revenue support for the passenger system. What we have had to say, however, is that the passenger support payment for 1976 should not exceed last year's level in real terms.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Does the Minister appreciate that the commuter has to pay twice? He is not merely paying increased fares but he is also contributing by taxation to the subsidies which are made payable to the railways. Therefore, it must be a ridiculous situation if fares are rising and contributions are being paid by taxation.

After all, the subsidies to the railways are 31 per cent. of the total revenue.

Mr. Marks: The fact is that the commuters, on average, are subsidised as much as the average rail traveller. Some rail travellers in remote country districts may be subsidised by as much as 5p a mile. Some South-Eastern commuters are subsidised at the rate of 2p a mile and can pay as little as 2·2p a mile when there is a season ticket contract. Therefore, it is not the South-Eastern commuters who are subsidising the rest. It is those who, in the main, do not travel by rail at all who are subsidising railway travellers.
All I would add on this point is that commuters have not been singled out for harsh treatment in the March increases. Certainly some London and South-East commuter fares are going up by more than the national average. On the whole, however, the South-East area is subsidised as much as the others.
Finally, I do not think that we should lose sight of the contribution railways can make to commuting elsewhere than in the South-East. All the English metropolitan counties and the Strath-clyde Regional Council recognise the value of railways in meeting local transport needs. I know that they and the Railways Board are anxious to make the best use of these local commuter rail networks, and I am sure this is something which the House would want to welcome and encourage.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. John Stanley: I shall be very brief, as many of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate.
I cannot stress to the Minister too strongly the truly crippling burden on family budgets caused by the increase in fares over the last two years. I should like to take an example from my constituency. In February 1974 the annual Tonbridge-to-London season ticket, second-class, cost £164. With the new increases in March, the cost will be £340. That represents an increase of 107 per cent., which has taken place in a two-year period; an increase that is, as we know, payable wholly out of taxed income.
Perhaps I may make a comparison. In the last two years, for someone on average industrial earnings his after-tax income has increased only by about 45 per cent. Probably the average income of commuters is somewhat higher. This means that their after-tax income has been increased by a lesser amount than 45 per cent. I would judge that the rate of increase of commuter fares has been about three times greater than the rate of increase of the after-tax incomes of those who are commuting.
This has been an enormous financial burden. It is quite evident, from correspondence that one receives, that people are literally threatened with being priced out of their jobs. That is a very dire situation for many families.
I should like to pose a single question. The central question which must be faced is whether there is any case for the subsidising of commuter fares and, if so, what is the rational relationship between the level of fares and the level of subsidy. At present there is no sign at all—we hope that the Government's policy paper will change this—of any rational coherent policy towards commuter fares.
I should like to make one proposal to the Minister. I suggest that we need a cost-benefit study into the worth of expenditure on subsidies for commuter fares. As far as my area is concerned, this study should obviously be confined to the South-East. We need this because if commuter fares are uneconomic, to a greater or lesser degree, we must cost the consequences of discontinuing the level of subsidies.
At present, about 300,000 people commute from outside London to inside the Greater London Council area. If they are effectively priced off the railways they will either go by road or stop working in London. Either of those situations would create serious financial implications. If people start to travel by road it will put an enormous extra burden on the roads. Already it is estimated that 250,000 people per day travel by road into the Greater London area. The implications for road expenditure would be enormous.
There would be equally serious public expenditure implications of a fares policy that makes people move out of London

to find employment. One must bear in mind what that employment is worth to those in London in terms of the commercial rate. Yesterday, in a Written Answer the Secretary of State for the Environment said that it is estimated at the moment in the current financial year that the rate yield from non-domestic premises in Greater London is going to be £775 million.
If we try to reduce by a few tens of millions of pounds the subsidies on commuter fares in the South-East we must look at the possible jeopardising of possibly some hundreds of millions of pounds of rates in the Greater London area, which would necessitate a major increase in rate support grant. The implications should be set out and published. In the current year the Exchequer has paid out £760 million to the London authorities in rate support grant. That is the taxpayers' contribution towards keeping London afloat. London's solvency depends on keeping employment for people who live outside London. If the Government kill off rail commuters they will kill off London as well.
May we have a rational cost-benefit study of the return on subsidies for commuter fares? On any analysis I believe it will be shown that even if there is a small saving in those subsidies the public expenditure implications will be far more serious for London as a whole.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Les Huckfield: The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) has made one of the most constructive speeches that we will hear from the Opposition tonight. He has just made out a pretty constructive case for a full cost-benefit study into the continuance of public subsidy for commuter rail services in London. I wish he could pass down some of the information on his case to his own Front Bench, because they are constantly calling for the need to reduce public expenditure, particularly on the nationalised industries. It seems that the hon. Gentleman's remarks do not correspond to those of his own Front Bench.
Hon. Members on the Government side have a great regard for the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing because he has done his homework, which is more than can be said for his


Front Bench. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) made no constructive suggestions. As usual, he blamed the whole of the railway system's faults on overmanning. Anyone who knows just a little about the railway system would tell him that the Southern Region is the last place where there is overmanning. The hon. Gentleman represents a Midlands constituency, as I do, and he knows that commuter travel is different there—people travel by bus. The hon. Gentleman must have travelled by rail and he must have noticed that services are often cancelled because there is no driver.
If the hon. Gentleman travelled by train he will have found that there is often no ticket collector or anyone in the ticket office late at night. That is the sort of overmanning there is. Southern Region's most acute problem is that it cannot recruit the staff to man the trains or collect the money.
I speak as the parliamentary spokesman for ASLEF and a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union, and I was chairman of the study group financed by the magazine Socialist Commentary, which submitted a report on transport policy to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We made certain criticisms of the mode of railway operation and we noted that it was this Government who got the money for the present level of railway subsidy. It is all very well for the Opposition to say that they provided the framework in legislation. They may have done that for the Railways Act 1974, but the finance to subsidise the present operation of British Rail came from this Government, and it was a Labour Minister who guaranteed a provision of £1,500 million for the next three years to run the railways.
It is interesting to note that when the British Railways Board submitted its interim strategy it did not ask this Government or the previous Government for a major slice of the investment to be spent on commuter services. Many hon. Members on the Labour side were critical of that investment submission for the 10-year programme, because its main impact would have been not on the commuter services but on the high-speed inter-city services. We should criticise the British Railways Board because in the past it has paid little attention to the

modernisation and improvement of rolling stock and facilities for commuter services.
When I took a deputation of my hon. Friends to meet Sir Richard Marsh we pressed strongly the case for improving some of the cattle trucks which serve as our suburban rolling stock in the West Midlands area. Sir Richard said that it was the job not of the British Railways Board but of the West Midlands Transport Executive to provide the initiative. He apparently thought that the onus was on the Executive to improve rolling stock. That attitude, in conjunction with the Board's investment strategy, leaves a great deal to be desired.
No doubt we shall hear much about the article by John Dodgson—once a member of my committee—in New Society two weeks ago, and no doubt we shall also hear reference to the book by Richard Pryke and John Dodgson on what should be done about the railways. Anyone who thinks that railway subsidies at the present level benefit the better-off should go to Waterloo and Victoria each morning and see the number of millionaires who get off the trains. I cannot help agreeing with my hon. Friend the Minister that there may be a few well-to-do people who come in from Brighton, Clacton or other far-away areas, but it has always been my impression, when I have been at Euston, Liverpool Street or King's Cross in the morning and evening peak periods, that the bulk of those travelling by rail are ordinary working people.
It may well be that the inter-city business man has been enjoying the benefits of subsidies. It may be that there is a case for making him pay the market rate. I agree that we probably need much more information about the costing and profitability of each service. I, too, should like to see that sort of information made available.
There may be a few well-to-do people who benefit from railway subsidies, but it is mainly the ordinary person who benefits. The main reason for railway fares having increased by more than 100 per cent. over the past two years is that it was the deliberate policy of the Conservative Government to hold down nationalised industry prices as a means—so they thought—of controlling inflation. Conservative Members should bear in


mind the result of their Government's counter-inflation policy. It was their Government's policies that started the rot and made necessary the increases in railway fares.
It seems that the Opposition do not want fares increased. At the same time, they do not want subsidies or rates increased. What do they want? If we are to pay for our railway system we must pay for it from taxes, rates or fares. What do the Opposition want? It is a pity that no Liberal Members are present. It would have been interesting to hear what they think. All that we shall be having from the Conservative Opposition is a demand not to increase fares any further. It seems that we must not increase taxes or rates.
If the Opposition want to be constructive and want to be listened to, they must give us their prescription. All that we have heard from the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is that the present situation is all the fault of overmanning. I suppose he will realise, in the end, that that is the worst choice he could have made as a basis for his argument.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Dr. Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead)rose—

Mr. Ivor Clemitson: Mr. Ivor Clemitson (Luton, East)rose—

Mr. Huckfield: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson).

Mr. Clemitson: I have been trying to follow the logic of my hon. Friend's argument. He seems to have omitted one possibility—namely, to increase usage, thereby increasing revenue.

Mr. Huckfield: Yes, I am in favour of that I shall turn to that argument in a moment.
It seems that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has not done his homework. I have heard much criticism from his hon. Friends about the nationalised industries. They want them to behave more like commercial enterprises. They have attacked their pricing policy. They have said repeatedly that when a publicly-owned industry gets its pricing policy wrong its gets its investment strategy wrong. But even the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield admitted that the British

Railways Board is charging on the basis of a market economy. It is charging for services on the good old-fashioned principle of what the traffic will bear. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the nationalised industries should not be charging on that basis? If so, I wish that he would make his party's position clear.
If the Conservative Party is advocating that nationalised industries should not charge on the basis of what the traffic will bear—if it is advocating that they should not charge on the basis of profit maximisation—surely it is arguing for increased subsidies. There must either be profit maximisation—namely, the market economy—or a continuation of subsidies. I do not suppose that we shall have an answer to that argument from the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field referred to the unofficial action that has taken place on the Eastern Region. Again, I do not believe that he has done his homework. One of the main reasons for the difficulty last week was that the Eastern Region refused to abide by the procedure which the British Railways Board agreed last November. It agreed that if there was any difficulty about the alteration of services the matter would be referred to the joint consultative machinery at national level. It was because the Eastern Region refused to abide by that procedure that the difficulty ensued.
I eagerly await the consultative document which is about to be produced. I believe that once and for all we must interpret our party's transport policy. We believe in a co-ordinated and integrated public transport system. I also believe in the continuation of subsidies for commuter services, especially in the South East. I hope that the consultative document will make our attitude clear. I wish even more that the Opposition would make their attitude clear.

8.17 p.m.

Sir Stephen McAdden: I am glad that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) has made it clear that he categorises commuters in general as those who work for their living. It seems that he dissociates himself from the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the


Environment. If the Minister were to depend on the commuters for his chances in the activities that are now taking place within his party, he would be at the bottom of the poll. If he went to Fen-church Street Station and if the people coming off the trains were informed of his views, he would probably be lynched.
I am a commuter and I travel every day from Southend to Fenchurch Street. I know what those who commute are talking about. I have known for the past 30 years. Their main beef is about fares. In recent years the second-class annual season fare from Southend to London has increased from slightly over £100 to over £400. The increase has placed an astonishing burden upon working people who must travel to London to earn their living. It must be remembered that they were lured to live in Southend by the promise of cheap fares.

Mr. Ridsdale: That applies to Clacton.

Sir S. McAdden: Two years ago there were advertisements trying to persuade people to live in Clacton. In fact, the advertisements are still being used. The advertisements suggest that those who live in Clacton can enjoy the benefit of cheap fares to London. The railways have induced people to live in outlying areas. Now that they have their captive commuters they choose to ignore them, increasing the fares to levels which people cannot afford.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton says that there is the choice of higher fares or increased subsidies. That is not true in my constituency. The London-Southend line is not subsidised and it does not make a loss. My constituents do not mind paying the economic cost of their transport to and from London, but they object to being asked to pay more than the economic cost, and that is what is happening.
Over the years in Finance Bill after Finance Bill my colleagues and I have argued that we should set the cost of travel to and from work against taxation. Successive Governments have turned us down. The position is becoming serious when it costs £400 or more to get to and from London from Southend. I hope that the Minister for Transport will use his influence with the Chancellor of the

Exchequer to ensure that the burden placed on the commuting public is fully recognised.
Commuters also beef about the rolling stock. Five years ago the Transport Users' Consultative Committee recommended that the line should have new rolling stock. It has not yet arrived and looks as though it never will. Therefore, we are subjected to continual delays and frustrations. Instead of having 12-set trains, we have four-set trains. People have to stand shoulder to shoulder in grossly overcrowded conditions. This would be avoided if we were given better rolling stock and improved maintenance.
The travelling public also beefs about the remoteness of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, situated, as it is, in Norwich. The London-Tilbury-Southend line and the Liverpool Street-Southend-Victoria line are self-contained units. People in those areas do not want to travel all the way to Norwich to discuss their problems. We should like to see a more personal relationship. For example, the general manager is in York. Those two self-contained units are without any real means of communication for discussion and understanding of their problems.
It was not like that in the old days. In the old days, people such as Gerry Fiennes and Henry Johnson, who operated from Liverpool Street, understood our problems. We used to see them four or five times a year and our problems were dealt with immediately. But today the set-up is so remote that we do not have the contacts we used to have with those in charge. Those officials were railwaymen and understood their job. We want to see more railwaymen occupying similar positions.
Furthermore, we used to have thorough discussions before timetables were produced. The Mayor of Southend and also the three constituency Members of Parliament' used to attend those meetings. Although we now have a very good representative on the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, we definitely do not have the communications that used to exist. I believe that there is a great need for a public inquiry into the way in which British Rail is run. The needs and problems of commuters are not as fully understood as they used to be.
I appreciate that this is a short debate and that many other hon. Members wish to take part. We have already been told that this matter was debated in the House earlier in March, but I would point out that that was an Adjournment debate lasting only half an hour. Indeed, this debate- should have started at seven o'clock but did not. I do not believe that debates of this length are sufficient to discuss the many problems facing the travelling public.
Let us remember that there is no way out for these commuters who travel to and from London in order to attend their jobs. They live 40 miles from London and they must come to London to work. There is certainly no local work available for them. They are captive travellers. If they wanted to move to London, they could not get a house here at a price they could afford. After all, they were encouraged to move to Clacton, Southend, Billericay, Rayleigh and so on, and acquired houses in those areas in which they have now sunk their life savings. Those people are being disgracefully treated.
The time for debate is running short, and so I shall conclude. Commuters are being subjected to huge fare increases and are suffering ever-worsening services. In these times, they should almost be paid danger money because of what has been happening on the railways recently. I pay tribute to one of my constituents, Mr. Peter Chalk, who made a brave attempt to arrest the murderer who put the bomb on the West Ham train. Commuters are experiencing enormous stresses and strains in their travel to and from London. They know that they are almost sitting targets for those who leave bombs on public transport.
Therefore, let us do all we can to help those travellers. We know that we cannot stop the bombers, except by constant vigilance on the part of everybody who travels. There are other ways in which we can ease the stresses and strains of travellers. Let us at least see that they are not penalised as they are at present. Let us see that the fares they pay are not greater than the economic costs of transport and that they are not subjected to the kind of travelling conditions we now see.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am glad to be called to speak following the remarks made by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) because it was in my constituency of West Ham that the bomb exploded. I am sure that we all wish to pay tribute to the brave driver who lost his life in trying to do something about the situation.

Sir S. McAdden: Perhaps I ought to tell the hon. Gentleman that I was in the train behind the bombed train. Thank God, I did not catch the one before!

Mr. Spearing: Many people have had to move out of London, not from choice but because of the mortgage-season ticket balance. I suggest that some commuters want it all ways. We all know that many commuters do not own private transport, but there are large numbers of travellers who have their own motor vehicles. They use rail for work journeys, having reached the station in their private vehicles. That factor must be taken into account.
What we are now facing—and perhaps Whitehall has not yet appreciated this fact—is that in the last 10 or 15 years there has been a revolution in the changing techniques of private transport. Those techniques undermined the economics of public transport. However, everybody wants some form of public transport to remain particularly in serving urban areas. That appears to be common ground on both sides. We differ in terms of how those public services should operate. If some Conservatives had had their way in earlier years, there would be no public services at all.
I wish to comment on some fundamental points and hope that they will be borne in mind by the Government. We must not forget the important question of work journeys to and from urban centres. This matter is dealt with in the National Expenditure Survey. We are told that the top 20 per cent. in the earning brackets contribute 40 per cent. or more of the earnings of British Rail. That occurs because those travellers make the same journeys repeatedly and includes some first-class travel. In other words, only a small proportion of the population produces that revenue.
I hope that forthcoming documents on this subject will take account of these factors. The Minister for Transport and Whitehall officials have only to visit the great London termini at weekends to judge people's travel habits. They will see that the thesis advanced by the Secretary of State for the Environment does not hold water. It does not hold good in terms of the large proportion of the population who do not own public transport. It is the people at the other end of the scale whom we must bear in mind. Only a small proportion of the revenue is produced by those who use public transport for social journeys, family reasons and holidays. I hope that that factor also will be taken into account in the documents which are to be produced.
I wish to emphasise that urban work journeys are essential to the health of urban centres. Those centres are largely areas of late nineteenth century and early twentieth century growth. The Greater London Council, which is Labour-controlled, is not happy with the trends. The health of London as an urban centre largely depends on rail services in inner and outer London. If fares continue to rise, people will use road rather than rail and the GLC's policies will be put at naught. There are secondary effects of rising rail fares which ought to be examined in Whitehall, albeit in a different Department or by a different mechanism.
Unless the Government take cognisance of this fact, they may save a few million pounds in subsidies but there will be terrible damage in social costs and, even if the Government pay out these costs, they will not recreate the community which will be lost. The flight of business and work from London is of serious proportions. If the idea gets around that those travelling by rail into and inside London will have to pay more and more, the atmosphere for employers will become even worse.
The GLC is the authority responsible for London Transport and planning. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle) has gone. If he had listened to the debate, he might have learned something to his advantage. We have 500 stations inside the GLC area and 680 route-miles of

railways. On the London work journey routes, there are 10,000 railway coaches. This is a tremendous organisation, but unfortunately it is not used to its full capacity. I understand that on the London Transport rail system the passenger miles travelled each year are decreasing. The figure was 675 million miles in 1961 and it had fallen to 640 million miles in 1973. Rail traffic through Westminster station has fallen 25 per cent. in the last 10 years.
Money has been screwed from work journeys in London because the travellers are a captive public. This policy was started by none other than Mr. Horace Cutler when he was in control of the GLC. He said that as people living inside the Circle Line had to pay fares, the GLC would put a surcharge on inner London travel. He also said that because a high proportion of journeys by Underground were work journeys, tube fares would be increased more than bus fares. Consequently, London now has a two-tier transport system.
Because of the policy carried out by the Tory GLC—and I hope the Minister for Transport will not go the same way; there is a danger of it—instead of an integrated road and rail service, we have a relatively cheaper bus service and a relatively more expensive tube service. We have lost the co-ordination which existed when London Transport was set up in 1933.

Dr. Glyn: I am following the hon. Member with considerable interest. Is not the most important point in the Consultative Document the actual cost of journeys? There are many cases where commuters are paying a higher rate for their travel than other people in the rest of the country. They are subsidising the rest. Should the figures not be broken down to show the exact cost of a journey so that we could all know it?

Mr. Spearing: I hope that the next part of my speech will help the hon. Member. The middle part of what I want to say will, I hope, be getting towards a solution acceptable to both sides of the House.
Because of the increasing reliance on work journeys for revenue, a remarkable situation has been brought about in London. About 63 per cent. of the revenue


of London Transport comes from rush hour travel and 77 per cent. of British Rail's revenue in the London passenger area is from peak hour travel.
I think we all agree that we must have the facilities to carry peak hour traffic. From calculations I have made and checked with London Transport, it seems that about 25 per cent. of the population in Greater London pays for about 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. of the cost of rail travel in London. A diminishing proportion of the population is paying an increasing proportion of the costs of rail travel, even including some subsidies. That is the spiral into which we have got ourselves. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment does not appear to have seen this fact. He seems to be following the road of Mr. Cutler a few years ago and making that spiral even worse.
Coming back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn), it is difficult to find out just how much a rail journey costs. Indeed, it is virtually impossible. One accountant does the calculation one way and another calculates it in a different way. As the Minister for Transport knows only too well, the fixed costs of rail transport are very high—track, signalling and stock which has to be used at peak hours is there all the time. So, too, are the men. The costing of a journey is an accountant's nightmare. These high and growing fixed costs depend upon a reducing revenue base. A smaller proportion of the population is using the rail services. This may be partly because it is a matter of fares.
The difficulty is that London Transport and British Rail are not imaginative in the way they can try to get out of the spiral. For example—it would not necessarily work but the onus is on British Rail to say why not—supposing that commuters who are beefing were told that for a season ticket which costs so much a month they could get unlimited weekend travel on London services for nothing. I do not believe that it would cost British Rail any more to carry them because its conveyor belts are at work throughout the weekends and in off-peak periods anyway. They are running all the time. The fixed costs are there. There would not be another penny in expenditure.

It would be good value for money. I think that it would stop at least some of the complaints. Those involved might take their wives and children as revenue-paying passengers, which would bring in more money.
Two years ago, I asked London Transport to look into such a scheme but its reaction has not been promising. I do not think that there is enough initiative and enterprise of the right sort in the managements of these undertakings. I believe that managements should manage and that we must not interfere too much in day-to-day activities. But they must be accountable and tell us not only why certain things cannot happen but why some of our suggestions are not feasible. After all, if a scheme such as that which I have suggested were operating, more people would travel, and if for the same outlay of money there is a total social gain, paricularly for town centres and areas accessible to public transport, that is a community gain all round.
Some years ago, the Department and the GLC set up a committee to look into the rail services in London. It reported in November 1974. One of its recommendations was that a London rail committee should be set up to look at transport by rail in the area and the relationships between British Rail and London Transport, with the possible exchange of routes and so on, including a new fare structure. In December 1975, the GLC said that it would like such a committee to be established. It has no power over British Rail as it has over London Transport. I understand that my hon. Friend is considering appointing such a committee and defining its terms of reference. I hope that he will tell us about it and will take account of what has been said in the debate. I hope that he will make it a committee with teeth.
As long ago as 1933, there was a pooled system of fares for London. Both bus and rail fares were put into a pool. The railways were privately owned then. There was no rivalry as there is today, with everyone trying to grab the revenue. In some ways, it was a more progressive system than now operates under public ownership.
Public transport is vital to the health of the community. It must be treated as perhaps the importance of fresh water was treated in the nineteenth century. The


philosophy of the Opposition will not make that come true. It is that philosophy which has put us into the parlous position we are in today. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport will not continue down that road.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. It would be desirable that I should explain the timetable of services for the House of Commons for the rest of the debate. The winding-up speeches are, I understand, due to begin at 9.40 p.m. but still 14 hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. The more we can speed up the service, the more passengers we shall be able to carry.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: The debate has arived at a fortunate time, so soon after the statement from Sir Richard Marsh, indicating the problems that have faced British Rail under successive Governments. We shall all look forward with interest to the Consultative Document promised from the Government.
The Government must decide the responsibilities of British Rail. They must decide whether British Rail is to be run as a profitable undertaking—in which case presumably without any subsidy and as an ordinary commercial concern—whether it is expected to break even, with a certain amount of subsidy, or whether it is to be looked upon as a necessary social service requiring a very considerable amount of subsidy and assistance in capital expenditure.
When the Government have decided on its rôle, and whether British Rail is an essential need—which I believe it is for a great many people—involving quite large subsidies, they must allow the British Railways Board to carry out its policy, and the Government must back the Board. After all, the Government are responsible for setting the guidelines of British Rail. When the objectives have been set, the Board must be supported by the Government in formulating clearly defined, measurable, time-based and feasible policies, with all the permutations and considerations involved. Only by such a philosophy and procedure shall we bring about the improved performance and

efficiency demanded by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Inevitably it will mean some reduction in staff. It is the Secretary of State who has said that there is over-manning. It has not been said by people from this side of the House. According to a leading article in the Daily Telegraph of 13th September 1975, wages account for some 70 per cent. of the costs of British Rail. It is perfectly clear that there will be quite considerable difficulties in bringing down the over-manning, if it exists. The Government must accept this, because the Government will have the responsibility for setting the targets of British Rail in the future.
When the policies are decided and the targets are set, it is essential that the fare-paying public and the staff should be fully informed of them. This has been lacking in the past. Neither the public nor the staff have been able to assess the future policy of British Rail for any reasonable period. Indeed, it is obvious from Sir Richard Marsh's remarks that the British Railways Board has been so inhibited by Government interference that it has been unable to give this information. Any odium that may result from the Government's involvement must be shown to result from their objectives and their instructions and not set against the luckless Chairman and Board of British Rail.
Whatever policies may be decided, the public will inevitably bear the consequences. In recent years the consequences have been very harsh indeed. My own constituency illustrates very clearly the impost on the members of the travelling public. In 1972 an annual season ticket from Rainham to London cost £117. It now costs £372—an increase of £255, or more than 200 per cent., in four years. Now we are told that commuters are threatened with an increase of a further 50 per cent. in railway fares. That would bring the cost of a yearly season ticket to £558. As the Minister must know, that must come from net income after tax.
I assure the Secretary of State for the Environment that the 6,000 people who daily commute to jobs in London from my constituency are not, as he was allegedly pleased to call them at a Parliamentary Labour Party Transport Committee meeting on 24th February, wealthy commuters who can afford to


pay more. If that is what he believes he should tell my constituents so and the constituents of my hon. Friends and Labour Members. These constituents are ordinary working-class people, comprising middle management, secretaries, Post Office and shop workers and civil servants—people without resources to meet the increases in the cost of living now being imposed on them. Many of these people are striving to meet increased mortgages, higher rates and general living costs. They are the people bound by the maximum wage increase of £6 gross, £4 net. Now, we are told, they are faced with further increases.
The 50 per cent. increase would mean, in my constituency, that each commuter would have to pay another £3·54p a week on his railway fare. There are higher rates and electricity charges in the pipeline as well as other increased living costs. This applies to the constituents of all hon. Members. In addition, very shortly the £6 increase will be a thing of the past. We are told that future increases will be much lower. The problem will be that much greater for these people. Many people are even now unable to make both ends meet. There is real poverty.
Any further large increases in rail fares will have a catastrophic effect on living standards and will drive people well below the poverty line. These people are compulsory daily users of the railways. They have been singled out to pay more, proportionately, than those who use the railways on a casual basis. They are captive passengers who can do nothing but pay. As has been said, they often travel in cattle-like conditions.
Most of the 2,500 people who live in homes on one of the biggest estates of my constituency of Gillingham are commuters. They were tempted to come to Gillingham from London because they thought they could afford to buy a nice house at a reasonable price. Had they known of the increased costs they would have to bear in railway fares, rates and so on, they would never have moved. It has brought them great hardship. It is not surprising that they are disillusioned, and in many cases bitter. Neither British Rail nor the Government can go on putting the boot into these people. They have surely been clobbered

more than enough already. Many have reached a state of despair in which they feel that they would be better off if they gave up working, stayed at home and lived on National Assistance.
Instead of adding to their misery, the Government, whose ultimate responsibility it is, should be thinking of easing their plight. If British Rail cannot hold down fares, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should consider allowing the whole or part of the cost of a yearly season ticket to be offset against tax. I hope that the Minister will give very serious consideration to some relief at this time and possibly persuade his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to help.
Labour Governments have always said that they are the champions of ordinary working people. If that is so, this is the opportunity for them to show it by extending a helping hand to many people who at the moment are in very grave distress.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Ted Graham: Like many hon. Members who have spoken, and certainly like the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), I claim some experience in speaking in a debate about the commuter. We try to represent our constituents, and many hon. Members who have spoken represent commuting constituencies. What is more, many of us also have practical experience.
I declare my interest first as a member of the travelling public. I live in Bush Hill Park. I represent Edmonton. For the past 15 years, I have travelled on the Enfield-Liverpool Street line. For the first 10 of those years, I travelled from Enfield Town to Liverpool Street itself. For the past five or six years, I have travelled from Bush Hill Park to Seven Sisters and thence on to the Victoria Line, so I am not unfamiliar with the problems facing commuters who travel on those two lines.
I declare another, side, interest. My son is a trainee driver with British Rail. As a result, I am not unfamiliar with the problems about which he tells me.
I do not wish to try to elevate this debate into a matter which is the subject of any party animus. I hope that we are all concerned primarily to try to ease the lot of the commuter either by


making his journey more comfortable or to do all that we can to avoid making it very much more expensive. I hope that at the end of the day we shall all be committed to ensuring that a public transport system of quality and efficiency at a reasonable cost is at the beck and call of the British travelling public.
Opposition Members have put themselves on the horns of a dilemma. They have committed themselves in general to a reduction in public expenditure and to the philosophy that the nationalised industries should pay their way much more in the future than they have in the past. If their plea is that the commuter shall pay less—either less than he does now or less than he may have to in future—they must remember that the money will have to be found from some source. If we agree that the rolling stock needs improvement, that the service needs to be maintained and that we need to have cheerful and reasonably well-paid staff in sufficient numbers, inevitably the money must be found from one source or another. It must come from the fare-paying passenger, from a rate subsidy, or from some form of central subvention.
One suggestion for reducing or controlling travel costs is to have a go at wages, and that immediately takes one to the allegations made about overmanning. Whenever I use Enfield Town station, Bush Hill Park station, Lower Edmonton station or Silver Street station, I see no signs of surplus staff. In the morning, I travel up at 8.30. Very often I travel home on the last train. Frankly, I see no evidence anywhere of the overmanning about which many hon. Members complain. From what my son tells me the footplate staff are not overmanned.
I am puzzled by the generalisation that by some magic formula one can look at the global entity of British Rail employees and say that one can reduce their number by 10,000, 50,000 or 100,000. If we study the problem in detail we realise that there has been a slow process which is due partly to a need to control costs and partly to the unsatisfactory nature of the work. Over the years there has been a gradual diminution in the number of people who have been working on the railways.
Members of the commuting public must know that if they are to pay the kind of fares that have been mentioned,

and which I do not dispute, they are entitled to know what they are paying for and how the costs are created. They are also entitled to have the justification for those costs explained.
In addition to producing a Consultative Document, which I believe is generally welcomed by both sides of the House as a new starting point, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and his advisers will take a fresh look at the philosophy of our public rail services. I hope that the public will be treated as adults and told what they are paying for, even if fares have to be increased inordinately. The case that is made behind closed doors should be capable of being translated into simple language for the people who travel on the railways.
Reference has been made to the change in the mode of travelling. Undoubtedly there are many thousands of people, certainly in Enfield Town and Bush Hill Park, who travel to the station by car and then make their journey by rail. The local council, the Greater London Council or British Rail should pay due regard to an adequate provision of car parking facilities.
I shall refer briefly to the frustrating situation at Bush Hill Park station where there is a disused goods yard which is ideal for transformation into a car park Unfortunately, British Rail has recently advised local residents, ratepayers and travellers that for one reason or another, primarily financial reasons, it is not possible to provide that car park. This is an ideal illustration of a case in which the social cost and the social good should take precedence in this small area of the accountancy of British Rail.
It is extremely easy for the Opposition to criticise the fact that 31 per cent. of the cost of the commuter fare is subsidised. However, they do not say whether they want a bigger public subvention or want a bigger share of the fare to be paid by the members of the travelling public.
Reference has been made more than once to the departure of Sir Richard Marsh as Chairman of British Rail. I hope that serious consideration will be given on this occasion to finding his successor from within the ranks of those who are serving in British Rail. It is about time that the morale, confidence


and pride of those who have spent all their working lives in British Rail and who have moved up the ranks, very often from the bottom to near the top, were recognised, and that such people were rewarded by being given the top jobs and some of the near-top jobs in running British Rail. They have a major contribution to make. The appointment of one of those people would be a great morale booster to those who work on the railways.
I like the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden), who referred to the problems of the commuting public in making their complaints known to the transport users' consultative committees. In spite of the attempts of the Government to inform the public of the existence of these bodies, far too few members of the travelling public know that they exist, let alone where they are located. I should like the committees to take a more aggressive, adventurous and exciting attitude, and to take the public into their confidence. They should invite the public to form a partnership, aimed at improving services.
The Consultative Document, when it comes, will be greatly welcomed and useful. I pledge myself to support an integrated transport policy. I believe in a subsidised transport system. Tonight we have been complaining about different aspects of the railways, but none of us has come up with much by way of practical suggestions. The problems are enormous, and the answers will be found only with time and money. We should give the Minister and the commuting public the time and the money so that improved services can result.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: Since we have to be brief I do not intend to comment in detail upon the speech by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham).
The patience of commuters is near to breaking point and many of them are desperately worried about their present financial situation. Many hon. Members have quoted the cost of season tickets to their constituencies. I am sure that every hon. Member has at some time been to Brighton. The present weekly season ticket from Brighton to London costs

£11·25, and the monthly season, £42·70. Ten years ago the monthly season, at just over £12, was virtually the same as the weekly season is now. The impact of this cost on the earner with a gross income of about £60—and many in that category travel up from Brighton every day—is frightening. It is a question not just of the cost of the season ticket but of the cost of getting from home to the station and then from Victoria or London Bridge to the office and back again. The price of these additional fares can often be anything up to £3 or £4 a week.
Commuters from all over the South-East and from the North of London provide the capital with its essential workers. Without them the operation of the City and London as a whole would probably grind to a halt. Over the last 25 or 30 years Governments and local authorities of all political complexions have been actively encouraging people to move out of central London, down to the coast and into the South-East. Many of these people were told that such a move carried an important social duty and responsibility. Now they find themselves trapped in an impossible situation.
There is a very strong argument for allowing at least some form of scaled tax concession linked to the mileage that a person has to travel to work each day. Obviously it would not be very high for someone who has to travel only 20 miles each way, but it should be higher for somebody who has to travel between 40 and 60 miles each way. A fair scheme could be worked out to minimise or reduce some of the hardship now being suffered.
I want to make some positive points which I trust the Minister for Transport will take into account. The Department is working on the Transport Review. There is no doubt that we must look at the overall needs not only of the South-East but of the country as a whole in relation to its economic lifeline, which depends in part on the railway system.
Has enough research been done on the subsidies that come from the Government, either directly or indirectly, for both road and rail? For example, accidents on the road cost the nation about £1,000 million. Happily, the figure for the railways is negligible.
An article in the New Scientist of 23rd October 1975 contained these words:
No one knows what the capital debt of the road system amounts to, but careful estimates indicate that it lies beween £24,000 million and £31,000 million. Even taking the lower end of the estimate, all motor taxation currently levied represents only 1 per cent. interest on this capital, after provision has been made for administration costs, accidents, policing, maintenance, and new road works.
I wonder whether sufficient research has been done on the form and type of subsidies that we are talking about for the railways. We must think about those figures. I hope that the Transport Review will take them fully into account.
I wish to speak about only one other major area. I hope that this will be regarded as practical and helpful. Those who have seen the Evening Standard tonight will be aware of the report:
Southern Region train drivers are threatening to strike on April 20 if planned service cuts go ahead.
Any strikes, most of all unofficial strikes, would be a disaster not only for commuters but for all railway employees and for the future of the railway system. I urge the men of ASLEF and the staff at Brighton, many of whom I have the privilege of representing in this House, to think very carefully before involving themselves in any unofficial action. Indeed, I urge them to follow the advice of their union leader, Mr. Ray Buckton, with whom I had the pleasure of speaking at a public meeting in Brighton only a few weeks ago.
Unofficial action will inflame the commuter, make life even more difficult for him than at present, and do great damage to the whole of the railway system. Commuters are near to open revolt. If fares continue to rise at their present rate, many families will suffer genuine hardship and some will be on the bread line. They need help now.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall take only five minutes. Commuters exist in other parts of the country than London and the South-East. "Commuters" is a dreadful word. It describes people who travel regularly. Such people live in the provinces and use lines radiating from Leeds, for example.
Although hon. Members from London and the South-East complain, their rol-

ling stock is vastly superior to the ageing and tatty diesel multiple units which are frequently the sole means of transport of commuters in the provinces. I urge the Minister to encourage British Railways to concentrate what little investment they have on refurbishing the diesel multiple unit stock on which they have started, because to regular travellers the programme seems attenuated and slow. The new white diesel multiple units-or the old ones painted white and with the interiors refurbished—seem an isolated attraction, something of a star, for many passengers.
In previous debates, it has been suggested that the £238 million a year allocated to British Rail is not sufficient for it to maintain its services, and that this will lead, for example, to a 40 per cent. reduction in the maintenance of terminals and station buildings and equipment. That means that the lines themselves are becoming increasingly unattractive. Many of them are Victorian anyway and in a very tatty condition.
This leads to a decrease in passenger numbers, and a search for alternative means of transport, which means greater costs for those who continue to travel by rail. This is a vicious decreasing spiral which can only harm the railways. Already it has brought about bad industrial relations. A strike has taken place on the Eastern Region as a result of cuts in services inflicted on the railways because of this lack of investment.
There are alternatives for investment. Although the road programme has been under some scrutiny, I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton, Kempton (Mr. Bowden) that it could come under even closer scrutiny. This sort of alternative is vividly illustrated by the Airedale route from Leeds which passes, hon. Members will be startled to learn, through my constituency, and for which there is a proposal for a £43 million trunk road. It might be salutary if the existing railway were improved, with "park and ride" stations, to see whether that method could ease the travelling problems of people going into Leeds and Bradford every day, before we spend £43 million on a new road.
However, the decision about the road is needed because one of the dreadful consequences of road building is planning


blight, which casts such gloom over so many houses—many of them owner-occupied. This needs considering. I hope that the Minister will assure us that roads expenditure can be severely pruned.
The position of commuters will be helped if the existing track and signalling equipment is used more, for example, for freight carriage. Neither British Rail nor the Government are doing enough to encourage the use of rail for freight transport. The private sidings which are subject to grant aid under the 1974 Railways Act have not been a tremendous success. Only three were opened in 1975 and probably only a dozen or so are under current review. There must be a much more massive movement of freight from road to rail before we can be assured that freight haulage is playing its part in providing revenue for British Rail to help to keep down passenger costs.
When we talk about an integrated transport system, as we must when talking about commuter services, we should point out that National Carriers and Freight-liners should be reintegrated in the general framework of British Rail. At present, much freight which is going by British Rail would continue to do so if this service were part of an integrated unit.
I take the point that much more information and accountability is needed from British Rail. That would also include industrial relations, by starting on the path of industrial democracy. One of the reasons for strike action—it is a last resort in every case, contrary to what the Press might say—is the fact that many ordinary working railwaymen do not get information, and are not consulted properly when new duty rosters and schedules are drawn up.
As a good start, since Richard Marsh has been mentioned, the Government might consider introducing provision for the election of the Chairman by the work people. That might be a good presage for much greater industrial democracy and, hopefully, better industrial relations than sometimes exist at a time of great difficulty for railwaymen who are facing redundancy.
I add this concomitant. Mention has been made of the good safety record of British Railways. I do not suppose that

any hon. Member would talk about overmanning if redundancies meant a reduction in safety standards on British Railways. Many people are employed by British Railways to ensure those high safety standards. Whatever else we do, we must ensure that there is no reduction in those safety standards which have been placed so high and which are guarded so jealously by operating railwaymen.
I hope that the Minister takes these remarks to heart. We do not want a withering away of the railways through inadequate investment and a lowering of safety standards of rolling stock, terminals and stations. We want to attract people to the railways. We have 11,000 miles of rail and a potentially first-rate commuter railway network. It must be the Government's political priority to retain and improve it.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Dodsworth: It is no part of my case this evening to present a catalogue of complaints, which could well be lodged in respect of the commuter services which serve my constituency. However, some lessons can be learned from a consideration of some of those complaints, and it is to those considerations that I wish to refer.
It is quite clear that many of the difficulties experienced in 1975 were overcome by an improvement in staffing levels. That is a lesson for us to take on board. Subsequently there was a slight deterioration which, perhaps, improved training facilities might remedy rather than discussions about more staff. It is clear that the service has improved when staffing levels have also improved.
I wish to refer to the definition of "commuters" and their requirements. I address myself in part to the possible requirements of commuters. Commuters are people who travel mostly during the morning and evening. It is the unremitting nature of the problem which presents many frustrations. There is the pressure of time. In between their journeys there is the working day, and they then return to another set of pressures, perhaps domestic pressures, which may arise from some of the travel problems and frustrations which they have experienced. Certain requirements arise and stem from those pressures.
There is a need for services to be punctual and reliable. That should not necessarily be confused with the requirement for the services to be frequent. A commuter is far more concerned that his train will be at the appropriate platform and arrive at his destination on time. A commuter probably has to continue his journey—and he may have an employer who expects him to arrive at work at a specified time. The commuter will expect to leave the station of departure on his return journey at a specified time. Therefore, he has a contract of time which he is anxious to observe. We must help him to do that.
Commuters want to travel in a degree of comfort and not in overcrowded conditions. They are not unreasonable but they do not expect to be herded like cattle, which happens on some occasions. Commuters want to travel at a tolerable cost. The issue of cost-benefit analyses was raised. We must consider what contribution these services can make to other operations and what other costs may be incurred if subsidies are withdrawn. We in Parliament have an obligation to see that we act on behalf of the nation as a whole and not merely in the interests of one narrow section. We have the difficulty of reconciling our social obligation with our economic sense and economic realities. That is a problem, and one to which we are trying to address ourselves now.
In trying to remove some of the causes of irritation, there are some simple things that would be helpful. I believe, for example, that the question of information remains unsatisfactory. From my own hearing and observation, the expression "The delay is due to operating problems or needs" is not very satisfying to a traveller at a station. He is quite clear that there has been an operating difficulty. What he wishes to know is something rather more accurate. I agree that that will not take away the delay. However, we are dealing with reasonable people, and reasonable people need information.
If people are on a train which has broken down, it must be—and I understand this—a very difficult task for the guard to walk through a series of carriages to tell people that they will have to remain where they are for an hour or and hour and a half. However, it is better

that that should be done, because people will respond, rather than leave people in isolation, in limbo, not knowing how long they are to be stuck or when they may return home. If they are transported to another station to await further accommodation, they still find that they are not told the full story. There has been some improvement in this matter, but there is room for more.
That brings me to a point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) on the question of consultation and knowledge. I believe that public participation exercises ought to take place just as much in relation to changes in railway services as they do on the question of new routes for motorways. The public participation exercises have been extremely beneficial in providing information for the public to help them to arrive at a logical and rational conclusion as to the most desirable routes. The Minister will recollect that we have shared some knowledge of those exercises. They have been beneficial. Being aware of the problems, people can, of course, create aggravation. However, that does not mean that ultimately we do not have a better solution.
If there are to be timetable and cost changes, the public ought to be brought into the matter by way of participation in those changes, being given the reasons for them and asked how they can be best accommodated. It is not the same problem as choosing a motorway route, but the principle of information and knowledge would be helpful if it were applied here.
Lastly, we could improve the areas of co-operation between, for example, London Transport and British Rail. From my own observation in my constituency, I have an example of a refusal to stop a British Rail train because it was alleged that the platform was too short at Rick-mansworth Station. However, when the matter is pursued one finds that this is not so and that the real problem lies in the fact that there is a refusal by London Transport staff at that station to call British Rail and to point out that certain other trains on London Transport have been cancelled. One then has the irritating fact that commuters standing on the platform may watch a half-empty train travelling through the station at high


speed when they know they will have to catch a similar train later by a connection at Harrow-on-the-Hill. Such a lack of co-operation is frustrating and irritating.
We can address ourselves to these matters to the advantage of our commuters and of the service that we are seeking to provide.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I represent a constituency from which about 20,000 people travel to London every day. They suffer in the way about which other hon. Members have spoken this evening. They suffer not only the financial penalties of living where they do but the indignities of being packed in like sardines at peak hours.
Many things have been said in the debate, and hon. Members on both sides of the House have made excellent points. I do not seek to repeat them, save the point about tax allowances. I think that in matters of policy we have now reached the stage about which that question must be reconsidered. It is almost a logical corollary of the Government's policy of scaling down subsidies for commuter rail transport for them to say that they will at least consider giving tax allowances for expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in earning taxable income. I say that because if we agree that consumers of services should pay something like the total economic cost of the services that they enjoy, we should also appreciate that some people have no choice other than to use the only service that is provided. My constituents are particularly unfortunate, because the only public transport they can use to travel to town is the South-Eastern Region rail service. There are no Underground or bus services into London.
At one time it was possible to say that if one moved to the outer suburbs one would be at a financial advantage because of lower housing costs, rents and mortgages, and that one could therefore afford to travel up to town every day. The extra sum that one paid for travel was the price that one paid for living in the surrounding green belt. That position has changed. The rents and mortgage rates in my constituency are now as high as anywhere in the South-East, and there is also a housing shortage. There is no longer any differential for the people living in the

outer London suburbs of the South-East.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) referred to the financial burdens on his constituents and said that they were well-nigh insupportable, but his constituents pay about 30 per cent. less per mile than my constituents do for a monthly season ticket to travel up to London. That is discrimination between the inner suburban areas and the long-distance commuter areas which is not taken into account by many people.

Mr. Bowden: But they have to spend longer on the train.

Mr. Stanbrook: They can read The Times or the Daily Telegraph.
These costs should be allowed against tax, because the extra costs that people have to bear are necessarily incurred because of their employment. That seems a logical argument if one considers the original tax principles.
I hope that the Minister will tell the House about his views on the so-called PEP train—the high-density prototype commuter train. Some say that the initials stand for "Pack-em in perpendicular". The whole point of the prototype electro-pneumatic commuter train is to increase the ratio of passengers to available space and to do that at the expense of the number of seats. I understand that the number of seats in each coach will fall from about 100 to about 70. Undoubtedly it is a great technological move forward. It will be a great improvement. It may be a more efficient form of transport. According to a recent Written Reply we have spent £1·38 million on the new rolling stock. It has been tested round the London area for the past four or five years. When shall we get it?

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Roger Sims: I have a personal interest in the subject because I am one of the 20,000 commuters to whom my Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), referred. I, too, represent the heart of commuter land. My constituency is almost entirely residential and a large proportion of my constituents travel daily to London, using one of four stations in the constituency or one of the six immediately around it. Conversation


in the area often turns to travel, and it is not always very flattering to British Rail. We grumble but we are grateful for the services provided because they are our lifeline. It is thanks to them that, all being well, I can leave my home and he in the House or in my office in the City within 50 minutes.
The journey is completed in speed and in safety, although safety can be hazarded. The unfortunate incident that occurred at Cannon Street Station might have been very much more serious. I pay tribute to the Southern Region and the police for the prompt and efficient manner in which they handled the incident.
I appreciate the effort that the Southern Region has been making to improve services. A most extensive track relaying took place last year between St. John's and London Bridge, with relatively little disruption to services. A new £10 million signal box has been constructed at London Bridge. Much work has been going on in the past few months in preparation for the new timetables which are due to come into operation next month and which will give improved timings.
A short while ago I mentioned a journey which is normally completed within 50 minutes, all being well. Often, alas, all is not well. There are a number of grumbles. We often hear about industrial action. When it takes place it is the passengers who suffer. Those responsible do not attract sympathy for their cause.
Passengers also have to suffer delays. Some trains are regularly late. Occasionally all trains are late. I realise that in the South-East of London there is a complex system and that one breakdown can have many repercussions. It would help if passengers could be given some explanation when trains arrive late. Some explanations are more enlightening than others. To be told that delays are due to congestion in the London area is not terribly helpful. To be told that the delay has arisen from track or signal failure is easier to understand, but the frequency with which such failures occur gives rise to some concern about the quality of maintenance.
Fares are constantly increasing. They place a heavy burden on those for whom a season ticket is an essential part of

their expenditure. The price of a season ticket has become so high that it is common practice for employers to make loans to their employees to enable them to meet the cost.
It has been suggested that the railways have a captive market. It is as well to remember that although many people have no alternative there is not a 100 per cent. captive market. If British Rail is not careful it could price itself out of the market. There was an interesting article to that effect in the Evening News last week. It pointed out that in 10 years the cost of car travel has doubled while the cost of train travel has nearly quadrupled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington has referred to the PEP rolling stock. British Rail consulted passengers in an endeavour to obtain a view. Why does not the Southern Region consult passengers on other matters, such as the proposals now going through to cut back services and to close some stations on Sundays? The unions were consulted but not the passengers or their organisations. One organisation approached the Southern Region and asked the general manager for a meeting. Its request was refused outright.
Is it not rather strange that, having prepared new timetables, the Southern Region should now, even before they are operative, propose to cut them and to close certain stations? Only yesterday Sir Richard Marsh said that to take out the odd train saves little, because of the basic costs of the infrastructure, yet that is precisely what Southern Region is proposing.
The Region is proposing to close certain stations on a Sunday, including some in my constituency. I accept that the traffic at these stations is low on Sundays, but some of my constituents work for newspapers and in hospitals. They are engaged on shift work and they will be greatly inconvenienced by the closures. They hold season tickets, yet they will be unable to use them. I do not know why the stations should be closed.

Mr. Tom Bradley: To save manning.

Mr. Sims: A number of the stations involved are not manned at all at night. Why is it necessary for them to be


manned on a Sunday? The inconvenience to my constituents will be considerable.
I should have liked to make a number of suggestions if more time was available, but I wish to give other hon. Members the opportunity to make a contribution to this brief debate.
Commuter services are special cases. They are not merely important to commuters; they are vital. If they do not function properly the routes into inner London and within the City will become so overloaded that traffic will grind to a halt. I hope that the Government are seized of the importance of commuter services and that they will support the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) that there should be a full inquiry into fare increases.

9.35 p.m.

Sir Bernard Braine: I believe that there is no better example of what is wrong with our country today than that provided by the ludicrous way in which we run public transport. I do not seek to make a party point, but I am saying that for years there has been no consistent policy, no clear objectives and no proper accounting.
It is high time that we were fair to the railways. Despite a considerable run-down of the work force in the last decade, we in this House have allowed British Rail to become a chronic loss-maker, whose only answer to shrinking passenger and freight traffic is to put up its charges still higher, which in turn drives still more customers on to the roads, at a heavy, though as yet unquan-tified, cost in terms of misused resources, increased road congestion and injury to life and limb. Nowhere is this clearer than in my own area, where two heavily used commuter lines run parallel to two inadequate trunk roads.
I shall not repeat many of the points made in other speeches, but it is quite true to say that many of my constituents are being driven to near despair by swingeing increases in rail fares. They have experienced savage increases in fares over the last three years and are reaching the limit at which the lower paid commuters, especially young people, can pay to get to work. Many tell me that that point has now been reached.
There is a strong case for re-examining the possibility of giving tax concessions on the cost of getting to work. However, we have reached a stage at which tinkering with the problem will no longer suffice. The moment of truth has arrived. It is deplorable that every time I make a plea for the hard-pressed commuter I am met with the parrot cry "But commuter lines are subsidised. No more public money should be spent on them." My reply is that the commuter lines in South-East Essex have been exceedingly profitable and are not subsidised. British Rail may be receiving subsidies to the tune of £500 million but at least we can see where losses are made. For example, these are made in keeping open unremunerative services for socially justifiable reasons.
Where can we find a balance sheet setting out the position on the roads? It is generally true to say that lorry traffic and buses are less efficient in long-distance high-speed traffic than is rail. Road transport uses more manpower, more energy and more track space per unit of output and the social and amenity cost is far higher than is the case with rail transport. The minor road system in Britain, viewed in economic terms, is just as uneconomic to provide and maintain as are many branch lines on the railways.
This is not an argument against roads, which are essential to civilised living, but it is a plea for a fair comparison to be made between road and rail transport systems. Unhappily, there is no British Road Board which publishes annual accounts. If such a body existed and if it were obliged to report to Parliament, we would see that the loss per unit of investment in roads would far exceed that of the railways.
The inference that railways are loss-makers and that road transport is not is therefore wholly false. In short, we have no proper transport accountacy, no awareness of the true financial and social costs of the two systems, and no real grasp of the way in which the two should be harnessed and financed to serve the best interests of the travelling public and the national economy.
As for the movement of passengers, a fully integrated bus and train system can compete with the motor car, is a better


use of national resources, and makes better sense in environmental terms. Yet we must reflect that we never close a road because it is not paying its way. In the past 15 years I suppose that we have demolished well over half our railway system, which was at one time the best in the world. We have done so without giving any thought to whether roads were or were not profitable. Merely staggering the hours of work in big cities would greatly ease the problem. It would encourage workers to travel with far less strain, and make more economic use of rolling stock. Yet no Government have bothered to do anything about this situation.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must realise that he is eating into the time that the two Front Bench contributors will require to reply to the debate.

Sir Bernard Braine: I was just reaching my conclusion, Mr. Speaker.
This is not the time to argue transport policy in detail; that must await the White Paper. In the meantime, however, let the House take serious note of the intolerable burden which past failure to tackle the problem intelligently has placed on the unfortunate citizens who are obliged to use the railways to get to work. Something must be done about it.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Peter Fry: I hope the House realises that what was to have been my speech has been totally ruined by the short amount of time left to me. I should like to refute entirely the alternative costings of road and rail given by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), but in the few minutes available, I had better stick to some of the other comments made in the debate.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) said that British Rail was suffering from problems created by the last Conservative Government's policy of restricting fare increases. This argument is trotted out again and again, but we cannot get the figures. The Table Office will not accept Questions on the subject and Sir Richard Marsh has not yet replied to a question I sent to him. The only source of information is the book written by Messrs Pryke and Dodgson who give

the figures as £31 million for 1974—for which hon. Members opposite are largely responsible—and £15 million for 1973.
If those figures are anywhere near accurate, their relevance to the current operating deficit of £340 million can be seen for what it is—an excuse to try to keep attention away from the problems which British Rail and the Government have failed to solve.
There is no doubt that, whether on fares, the quality of services, the state of morale of the work force or the quality of management, British Rail has not had a very good record in recent years. We can understand and perhaps sympathise with campaigns in opposition to any proposed rail cuts, but it should be put on the record that the enormous reductions in the number of staff which rail unions talk about have not occurred in the last six year. The massive reductions took place in the 1950s and 1960s, not in the 1970s.
British Rail's management has very little of which to be proud in recent years. Some critics have said that most of British Rail's financial problems were caused by the fact that it saw the Transport Act 1968 as an opportunity to obtain subsidies on even the most inefficient lines and therefore had no incentive to improve the system to make it more economic. It seems that British Rail holds up its hands in horror and says that the railways will never pay. British Rail says, "Tell us how much public money we can have and we will tell you how much of a system you can have". What a way to run a railway !
The hon. Member for Nuneaton criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) on the question of finance, but the biggest criticisms about money have been made by members of the hon. Gentleman's team and were set out in Socialist Commentary. Messrs. Pryke and Dodgson were members of that Labour Party team which made the strongest criticisms of over-manning.
I do not know whether all the savings they suggest are possible, but far too much overtime is being worked in British Rail and there is a shortage of key workers in certain departments. A lot more could be done by British Rail to see that the work force is used efficiently. The rail unions and British Rail should sit down together to look at problems of


over-manning, overtime and efficiency so that a much more efficient management operation can be put in force.

Mr. Les Huckfield: Mr. Les Huckfield rose—

Mr. Fry: I will not give way. The hon. Member for Nuneaton is one of the reasons I have only a few minutes in which to speak. I am sure he takes some satisfaction from that fact.
I conclude by making four quick points. First, the Government must come clean over the costing of commuter lines. It will not solve any problems but it will remove a sense of injustice among many commuters. Secondly, one of the answers to British Rail's problems must be the right form of investment—for example, the electrification of the Bedford line, if it will get a good return—rather than some form of research which may never be put to practical use.
Thirdly, the Government, British Rail and the unions should sit down to examine all procedures, rules and manning requirements. Fourthly, I agree that there must be a concerted attempt to do something about the peak. Every reduction of the severe strain on British Rail during the peak hours must be a net improvement. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to be too critical of schemes such as that proposed in the Home Counties for transferring commuters to coach operations. That is not unfair competition but a genuine attempt to help the commuter figures and to reduce the peak hour problem.
We do not suggest that we know all the answers and I do not suppose that the Minister does. We are conscious that, in the Consultative Document that he is to issue soon, not only is his reputation at stake but the future of British Rail itself.

9.47 p.m.

The Minister for Transport (Dr. John Gilbert): I have only about 13 minutes in which to speak, so I hope that the House will acquit me of discourtesy if I do not deal with all the points raised in this interesting debate. I am in an additional difficulty—with which I am not unfamiliar as a former Treasury Minister—in being in a sort of purdah because we expect to produce a Consultative Docu-

ment next month. It might be helpful if I say some preliminary words about our intentions with regard to that document.
In the first place, despite what has been said in the Press, the Government have not made up their minds finally about ways in which transport policy should develop. The consultations we shall seek after the document has been published will be genuine. We shall be asking the transport unions, the transport industries' management, the local authorities which organise and run transport systems, and, of course, the transport users' consultative committees and consumers generally to look at the facts about transport that we have found and some of the ideas we are putting forward to deal with the problems. We hope that they will all come forward with their own ideas for solutions and with suggestions, and we shall fully consider and discuss them. Only after that process has been completed will the Government decide firmly on the policy they wish to adopt. I cannot anticipate what will appear in the document itself, but I assure tha House that it will cover the question of rail fares and service levels, subjects about which many hon. Members have asked.
I am grateful for the acknowledgments on both sides of the House of the difficulties British Rail are encountering, difficulties which have persisted under different Governments. It is clear that our Consultative Document will stimulate a lively debate. Indeed, the debate has already started. In some respects, it is taking place between the Back Benches and their respective Front Benches. I have taken note of many of the questions put to me by my hon. Friends.
The hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) and for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) will have to answer some questions from some of their hon. Friends. There was not much to agree with in the speech of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield because he did not say much, but I did agree with him that there is no easy answer to the problem. But I have been encouraged by the attitude of many hon. Members opposite in the debate to public transport generally.
I do not criticise him for not being here, but I think that the hon. Member


for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) will find himself in some conflict with some of his hon. Friends. It was not long ago—13th March 1976—that the hon. Gentleman was saying:
Again and again, the true cost of running services has been hidden by artificially holding down prices as part of incomes policy. The result is that the tight managerial discipline, higher productivity and clear accounting that are so necessary in an industry like the railways have not happened".
A little earlier the hon. Gentleman said:
I must make it clear that it is inevitable that housing, transport, land and local government spending are bound to come under rigorous scrutiny. This means in particular reversing the trend by which housing and transport have become more and more social services financed by public money rather than paid for essentially by the users.
I envisage a very lively debate between the Front Bench and the Back Benches opposite while the general debate about the Consultative Document is taking place.
Many hon. Gentlemen opposite have suggested that tax relief should be available for commuter fares. Questions about tax changes are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will shortly be bringing in a Budget, but it is only right to say that tax relief of that sort would give disproportionate benefit to those who are already paying the highest marginal rates of tax. If it were to be given to those who have to pay for rail commuting costs it would be very difficult to refuse it for other ways of getting to work.
The point, made very clearly by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), is that to justify a deduction of that sort, even under the present income tax code, it would be necessary to prove that the expenses were wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred. One of the great difficulties in questions of this sort is that there is inevitably an element of discretion in where people choose to live. I shall be surprised if my right hon. Friend finds himself able to give concessions of the sort asked for by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I was much obliged to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) for being so fair as to point out that there had been examples of considerable improvement in certain areas of British Rail services for the commuters. Conditions are

not as good as we should like them to be. We are all aware of that and no one more than British Rail management. Unfortunately, the resources are not available to improve the quality of services and rolling stock over the whole network at the same time. My postbag tells me every day of the criticisms that commuters have as to the unreliability of services and the dirty and worn-out rolling stock many have to use.
One of the elements that are not generally recognised by the travelling public—and here again I pay tribute to hon. Gentlemen opposite who raised this point—is that commuters not only get relatively cheap travel compared with other ways of getting to work, such as the private car, as a recent Evening News survey demonstrated, but they also tend to forget that they have very safe travel. That is an element in the equation that is taken for granted by commuters, but the public need to be reminded of it not infrequently.
A considerable amount of investment has gone into improving British Rail services in the South-East in recent years. There have been electrification schemes on the Great Northern Line, the London Bridge re-signalling scheme, the London Bridge and Blackfriars reconstruction scheme, the re-signalling scheme in the Feltham area, and investment in several areas in new rolling stock. In the Eastern Region alone, some 76 vehicles, costing £4 million, are being introduced for commuter services out of Liverpool Street, and Fenchurch Street, and a further 244 vehicles, at a cost of £21 million, are to be built in 1977–78 to replace old rolling stock on the line to Shenfield. There are other major projects under considertion.
The main question raised by hon. Member opposite is that of fares. I shall not seek to bandy statistics about at this hour. It would be fruitless to do so. But I think it right to set on record that I totally endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) said—that the seeds of this problem for British Rail, and the reason fares have had to be increased so rapidly over so short a period of time, lie in the fact that fares were artificially held down for several years while the rest of living costs were going up.
It is only fair to say that fares would have had to go up a great deal more


had it not been for the Government grant to the passenger system of over 300 million this year. I want to emphasise not only that that is a record figure in real terms, after allowing for inflation, but that the Government are not cutting revenue support for the rail passenger system. All that we have done so far is to set a limit on it which, in present economic circumstances, was inevitable. We have said to British Rail that they must keep the rail support payment for 1976 to no more than the 1975 level in real terms. We had no option but to do that.
Conservative Members who talked blithely about manpower savings must recognise that while I accept that some manpower savings are possible—and I hope that the Board and the unions will be diligent in seeking them—they cannot come about overnight. I place on record a tribute to the statesmanship of the leadership and the rank and file of the railway unions. They have seen railway manpower decline from 475,000 in 1960 to about 230,000 now.
I do not suggest, and I never have suggested, that there is no more scope for manpower savings on the railways. But one thing needs to be quite clear, namely, that a lot of this depends on additional investment. For example, new rolling stock with power doors would help towards the single-manning of suburban services while the replacement of manned barriers with automatic ticket-checking devices would permit station staff to be reduced.
I certainly take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) that it would be folly to try to envisage manpower reductions that would in any way reduce the superb safety record of British Rail.
I hope that hon. Members, quite legitimately and properly representing the anxieties and, in many cases, the hardship of their constituents in London and the South-East in view of the rapid rise

in commuter fares, will not feel that their constituents are being soaked by comparison with other rail users. Commuters have not been singled out for harsh treatment, even taking account of the increase in fares that is coming on 28th March.
British Rail are trying to minimise the extent to which the passenger system is being subsidised by taxpayers. They believe—and I agree with them—that the best way to do this is to fix fares selectively. In other words, they have been following a policy of relating the fare to the market for the particular service, the class of travel and the type of ticket involved. Because of that there is a wide range in the increases to be made at the end of this month.
Although fares will, on average, go up by 12 per cent., commuter fares in London and the South-East will rise by between about 10 per cent. and 17½ per cent. Inter-city fares, on the other hand, will probably rise on this occasion by something less than that—about 5 per cent. to 12 per cent. The fares on the provincial stopping services outside the South-East and the metropolitan areas will be going up by broadly 17½ per cent., a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley. It will be seen that the London commuter is not being asked to bear an unfair share of the burden that all railway users are having to shoulder.
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said on 2nd March in the debate on commuter rail fares, the indications are that, in general, commuter services are more heavily subsidised than inter-city services. This will continue to be the case after the March increases. According to estimates published in a reputable London newspaper this week, it will still be cheaper, even after the March fare increases, to travel to work in London by rail than by car.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's Sitting, the Housing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill and the Education (School-Leaving Dates) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

HOUSING (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

INCREASE IN LIMIT ON AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF ADVANCES TO SCOTTISH SPECIAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 11, leave out "five hundred" and insert "four hundred and fifty".
I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for selecting this amendment, since it gives us an opportunity to consider further a number of matters which were looked at on Second Reading and in Committee but which were not finally resolved.
On this non-controversial Bill, I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances about the work of the Scottish Special Housing Association. Among other topics, he assured us that despite the economic difficulties facing the Government, the building programme of the SSHA would go ahead at a very reasonable level. We were all very glad to hear that.
In Committee, there was also general agreement that the SSHA had made a very useful contribution to the partial solution of Scotland's housing problems—a contribution in which both Governments had taken a certain measure of pride.
In relation to this amendment, there are three matters on which I think that we would all like further information and clarification. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman referred to help which he

hoped that the Association would be able to give to Glasgow in dealing with its housing problem. There was a time when the SSHA made a major contribution in this connection. I have mentioned to the Minister before that it was responsible for building a housing scheme in my constituency known as Toryglen—probably an inappropriate name for that area. But it was an attractive scheme, and it helped Glasgow a great deal. On the other hand, the Association for a number of years has been dealing with other parts of Scotland's housing problem and making a major contribution, especially in the North-East where we have the oil developments.
We were glad to hear the Minister say that the SSHA was considering making a further, new contribution to the solution of Glasgow's housing problem. This is extremely helpful bearing in mind the recent statement from the convenor of the Glasgow District Council that the council was reconsidering its whole housing policy.
I am sure that the Minister will accept that, despite the expenditure of a great deal of money on Glasgow's housing problems, they are still extremely serious. Both Conservative and Labour councillors in Glasgow will accept that if they were given the opportunity to start again from 1945 they would not pursue the policies that they then pursued. It has been admitted by the council that Glasgow has an inadequate proportion of owner-occupation within the city boundaries and a very substantial housing list, which is not unique to Glasgow, but a good number of houses which are difficult to let, even if they are not all vacant at the moment.
In view of that, I hope that the Minister will be able to give some indication of the kind of help that the SSHA has in mind to give to Glasgow. Can he also tell us what discussions he has had with the Glasgow District Council about it and when we may expect to see this contribution made?
It would help a great deal if the SSHA could do some building in Glasgow with a view to forming an integrated housing scheme in which full community facilities were made available. Many of


Glasgow's problems stem from the postwar policy of building major housing schemes without making proper provision for full amenities.
I hope also that the Minister will have discussions with Glasgow about its policy with regard to house allocation. It has been the tradition that the district council has been responsible for providing the tenants for Glasgow's SSHA houses and that the SSHA has been responsible for the property management but not for the letting of the houses.
Two matters stand out a mile which would be helpful in the Glasgow situation. One would be if we could have a policy whereby people who have lived all their lives in a certain area were able to obtain houses of their own in that same area. The Minister will be aware that in my constituency——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want to stop the flow of the hon. Gentleman's argument but it seems to me that he is going rather wider than the amendment. I have been prepared to let him go wide but in my view he is going excessively wide.

Mr. Taylor: I was seeking to draw attention to the unusual anomaly of SSHA spending in Glasgow. Whereas in other areas it is responsible for providing tenants in Glasgow there is the unique arrangement whereby Glasgow provides the tenants for the houses and the SSHA manages the property.
I turn to the second matter about which I hope the Minister will be able to give us further information. In our amendment we suggest a reduction in the expenditure of the SSHA because we want some information about how the money will be spent. In Committee the Minister suggested that there was a special problem in Scotland resulting from the shortage of one- and two-apartment houses. We are all aware that there is a serious problem created by many larger houses being occupied by one person or by a couple who would like a smaller house but who cannot get one because a sufficient number of smaller houses are not available. The Minister accepted my view that there was a need to do something about this and thought that the SSHA

could make a contribution. Will the Minister be more specific and give us some indication of the number of one-and two-apartment houses which he thinks the SSHA can build within its building programme?
We are all aware of the special problem of the single homeless to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and other hon. Members have drawn attention from time to time. This is a major problem in our cities and I am wondering whether, within its spending total, the SSHA has the means to make a contribution.
The third matter in connection with the spending of this money is whether the Minister will give us some indication of what advice he will be giving to the SSHA about its future rent policy. In the past Labour Governments have used the SSHA as a pace-setter for local authority rents. Therefore, to some degree injustice has been created. For example, in Tory-glen the tenants of the SSHA houses have been paying more than those living in comparable district or local authority housing.
Will the Minister give us some idea of what guidance he will be giving, especially in view of the Government's curb and limitation on public expenditure, in connection with the future rents of those living in local authority houses? Certainly the tenants of local authority and SSHA houses have no clear idea of the long-term pattern of rents perhaps over a three-or four-year period. Will the Minister give us some guidance about what advice he is giving the SSHA about the rent policy over the next three or four years?
If the Minister can answer these questions to my satisfaction I might be prepared, with your agreement, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw the amendment, but I shall only do so if we get the satisfactory answers which I am sure the Minister might be willing to give to us.

Mr. James Dempsey: I welcome my hon. Friend's decision to increase the expenditure by the SSHA on its houses and on the improvement of houses. I am surprised that anyone should suggest that at present we should reduce the amount to be spent on


housing as recommended in the amendment. We are always told about the extent of deprivation in West Scotland but I should have thought that one of the most effective means of eliminating deprivation is to construct attractive housing estates.
I received a letter not so long ago from the Scottish Special Housing Association giving me the good news that it intended to proceed with an improvement scheme at Townhead, Coatbridge, and is expending quite a large sum of money on this improvement. The letter said that it was hoped to improve 80 houses in 1976–77, but, lo and behold, a subsequent letter arrived a month later advising me that only 40 houses could be improved in the coming financial year and that the balance would be spread over a period of years. I appeal to the Minister to provide the necessary money to enable that much-needed improvement scheme to be completed within the next few years. I hope he can give an encouraging reply tonight.
I am grateful for the increased allocation to the SSHA, but I hope, in view of our promise at the General Election, that there will be no back-pedalling on essential housing projects, and that if it is necessary to increase the capital allocated we shall do so. There was an attractive scheme at Bellshill which was designed to serve the industrial and other needs of surrounding areas. The demand for the houses was so great that strict conditions were imposed and many members of the community who had hoped to qualify for these houses failed to do so. However, since new industries are being opened up, as they certainly are in my constituency, there is a strong need for another SSHA housing estate for industrial workers and for those who provide executive, administrative, teaching and medical services and so on for the community. If we create a community we must provide it with all these necessary facilities, and it is in this direction that the Association could serve a useful purpose.
I hope that the Minister will make sure that the money is made available to provide these desirable houses which are vital if we are to maintain a balanced community. Such a development would be particularly welcomed, even by the local authorities, because the

cost of these houses is in no way rate-borne, and with the current levels of rates in our part of the country that is an important consideration.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn. With the massive housing problem which exists in Scotland, the only justification for cutting housing expenditure would be if that smaller sum were more effectively and efficiently spent. I am certainly not happy about the present housing finance methods. The system must be reformed. The Government's promised housing finance review has not yet been issued and we do not know whether they will improve their record. The inevitable consequence, therefore, of the amendment would be a downturn in housing activity and continued unemployment in the construction industry, all arising from a complete failure to recognise the extent and urgency of Scotland's housing problem.
If the public expenditure White Paper is anything to go by, the proposed increase in funds for the SSHA is about all we are likely to get for some time. In a way the amendment tempts fate, because if we get an increase now we are not likely to get much more expenditure on housing for some time in the future. There will be a cut of £90 million from last year's estimates, and by 1978–79 the rate of public expenditure on housing is planned to decrease from IT per cent. to 1 per cent. anyway.
10.15 p.m.
Any financial allocation has an enormous problem to meet with 180,000 houses estimated to be below tolerable standard and increased overcrowding. The 1971 census showed that 440,000 council tenants were "grossly overcrowded". That is double the 1966 figure. There are estimated to be 200,000 houses in need of repair. When we fit that picture into a situation of pockets of hard-core urban deprivation, which are the worst in the United Kingdom, and an estimated 35,000 single homeless people in Glasgow alone, we have something to conjure with. Added to that the prices of new and second-hand houses are rising more rapidly in Scotland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Looking at the whole situation, one can begin to see that prospective Scottish house-buyers may be forced


to meet many problems with wages which on average are among the lowest in the United Kingdom. When we fit this picture together, the problems become only too clear.
Given Scotland's massive housing problems, any notion of such a cut as is proposed in the amendment becomes an insult. I do not favour unlimited spending from the public purse, but housing should be given the priority that it justly deserves. I reject the amendment and ask the Government to press forward urgently with their reform of housing finance. The problem is there. We must get the resources where they are most needed. The SSHA has a good record of building houses. It should be encouraged to continue the process.

Mr. George Younger: The amendment, as I am sure the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Welsh) knows, is designed to give us a chance to discuss the Scottish Special Housing Association. It is not intended that less money should be spent on housing.
The highest rented SSHA houses in Scotland are in the village of Symington in my constituency. It is a high-rented, attractive scheme in a very nice situation. With the payment of high rents there ought to be outstandingly good services for the tenants on that estate. They have had some troubles in the past few years, because there has been slowness in carrying out repairs to their houses. For example, there have been niggling things such as the provision of a common television aerial for the scheme. The situation has been most unsatisfactory for a number of tenants.
I am not generally criticising the SSHA, because it has been most responsive to complaints and suggestions regarding the problems which have arisen. However, I ask the Minister to reinforce and establish the principle that, where tenants are expected to pay high rents for good houses in an SSHA scheme, or any other, they are entitled to exceptionally good services.
Secondly, what progress is the SSHA making in selling its houses to sitting tenants? That is an extremely desirable object not only on general grounds but because it would reduce the need for some

of the extra money that is required. Alternatively, it might enable more money to be made available to extend house-building schemes elsewhere. I hope that the SSHA gets every encouragement from the Minister to sell houses to sitting tenants who wish to buy them.
My third question concerns housing in Glasgow, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) knows much more than I. Every time I go through Glasgow I am increasingly disturbed by the growing number of comparatively new houses which are being boarded up because they have fallen into such disrepair that tenants will not accept them. One person cannot do a survey himself, but I know of a number of places where the number of such houses is increasing rapidly—some in the Minister's constituency.
Like all local authorities, Glasgow District Council must be short of resources, but might not the extra money for the SSHA be well spent if the association were invited to extend its operations to house improvements—certainly the programme of improvements was stepped up during my time at the Scottish Office—and to help the district council to move into some of these schemes? It is a shame, when there are so many waiting lists, that these houses should be boarded up. I hope that the Minister will discuss this with the council and the association.
How much of this extra money is likely to be devoted to the Association's building programme in the North-East in connection with North Sea oil development? I was in at the beginning of this desirable programme. Many of the local authorities concerned find it difficult to provide the funds for the tremendously increased building needed. The SSHA is doing a good job in this respect, but we should be assured that any extra burden is met by the Government in addition to the funds that it needs for its other activities. We should also be assured that any restrictions on the extra money that the Association requires should not apply to money needed for North Sea oil development. This principle was established by the previous Government when I was at the Scottish Office.
I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to give a complete answer tonight, but I hope that he will do so when he has had time to consider the matter. An


extra programme of this kind should not have an adverse effect on the Association's other activities. If the Minister says that the Government will make funds available, I shall be reassured.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pass on to the SSHA the best wishes of all hon. Members for its work and their congratulations on the high standard of the schemes that it is producing throughout Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): I had better start by referring to the amendment so as to get in order. It would lower the maximum at which the Secretary of State, by Order subject to the approval of this House, could make future advances to the Scottish Special Housing Association. In practice, the Government would have to approach Parliament with further legislation, as the Association's capital expenditure approached the borrowing limit, at least a year sooner than would otherwise be necessary. However, in the light of our discussions in Committee, I appreciate that this is a technical device to enable hon. Members to raise one or two relevant matters.
We are pursuing the policy of a buildup of the housing programme for oil-related needs in the North-East. Local authorities receive special provision on top of what the SSHA contributes. I am quite satisfied that we have made adequate financial arrangements to relieve these areas of the burdens caused by oil-related developments.

Mr. Alick Buchan-Smith: We are grateful for the assurance that the Minister has given. Could he comment on the finance and resources available for water and sewerage schemes, which are vital for housing developers? There are some cases—and I do not accuse only this Government of this—where resources are made available for housing but the necessary services are sometimes not forthcoming.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to apologise if I offended him at Question Time recently when I said that I could not accept responsibility for the past defaults of Conservative county councils.
It has not been easy to achieve a relationship between the various district

councils in the North-East and the regional councils because of the enormous problems involved. Both the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) know these problems better than most. They are genuine problems. In spite of the difficulties and political differences between Aberdeen district, the Grampian Region and other districts, I am confident of the relationship that has flowed from the reform of local government, which I supported wholeheartedly. In spite of the practical and political difficulties in the area the degree of co-operation has been substantial.
When I last visited Aberdeen the problems that might arise on capital expenditure for water and sewerage were raised. I shall write to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) on this matter as he has written to me, but I am confident that we can overcome the genuine problems created by the reform of local government.
I am also worried about empty houses. We had a long debate on this issue when the hon. Member for Ayr tried to put on the statute book what was known as a "vicious" Housing Bill. There are fewer empty houses than there were in Glasgow, but I am concerned that the system is unable to match the number of houses available to the number required for the homeless and those living in overcrowded conditions. I have tremendous sympathy for Glasgow District Council over what can only be described as some awkward customers who try to blackmail it into giving accommodation at the expense of those who have been waiting a long time. Anyone who knows anything about the unfortunate publicity that that attracts will realise the problem of allocation. However, there has been an improvement in the situation in Glasgow.
I was asked about the selling of SSHA houses. We shall not discourage any applications that are made. Over recent years there have only been a handful of applications for the sale of SSHA houses. We have not changed our policy and take into account waiting lists and other demands. We shall not discourage the SSHA or other local authorities in appropriate places.
The hon. Member for Ayr sought an assurance that high-rented houses in Symington—a good amenity area—would


get better repair and maintenance services than in other areas. I could not give him such an assurance. I have no detailed knowledge of Symington, but if the hon. Gentleman has any particular problem I shall be happy to take it up with him. However, on the general point, the SSHA has a reasonably good record as housing managers, although there are sometimes local difficulties. If the hon. Gentleman has anything particular in mind, I should be happy to look at it.
10.30 p.m.
It would be a waste of time replying to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Welsh) because he is such a dismal Jonah about everything that happens in Scotland that what he says is becoming tedious repetition with no content. Sooner or later the people of Scotland are bound to tumble to the rubbish talked by the SNP, when——

Mr. Welsh: Mr. Welsh rose——

Mr. Brown: Let me finish. Indeed, for the SNP to keep repeating things that have a grain of truth in them is even more despicable than telling deliberate lies. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got the figure of 35,000 for single homeless in Glasgow. I presume that it includes students, tourists and everyone else who can become a statistic. I am not aware of any figure such as that being accepted by any responsible authority. The hon. Gentleman might at least now and again give a grudging welcome to what we are trying to do.
In reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), perhaps I may say that we are giving a considerable boost of something over 1,500 houses to Glasgow as a contribution, in addition to the high levels of public expenditure that will be available for Glasgow for new house building through Glasgow's own resources, modernisation and all the rest.
I wish that at least now and again the SNP would recognise some of the facts and give credit where credit is due. That seems to sum up the SNP.

Mr. Welsh: I should be happy to give credit where credit was due. I am happy to recognise the fact that the hon. Gentleman may find repetition tedious. However, if he thinks that there is no content

to what I have said, he should take a walk through the city that he represents and some of our major cities in Scotland. He would then see that what I have described is far too much of a concrete problem. I am also happy to repeat and repeat it until some action is forthcoming.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Gal-pern): Order. I shall not permit interventions to be used for the purpose of making additional speeches.

Mr. Brown: I got into trouble with you last night, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I gave way for an SNP interruption. I presume that you have just emphasised that you were right last night.
All I would say to the hon. Member for South Angus is that he should not be so insulting. I walk around not only my own constituency. I am also happy to say that I was born and bred in Glasgow. The hon. Gentleman must not try to teach me anything about Glasgow's problems. All that I am trying to get him to admit is that the Bill makes increased amounts available not only for Scotland generally but for Glasgow in particular. If the hon. Gentleman were willing to interrupt me and to say "I applaud the Government for their contribution in this regard to the solution of Glasgow's housing problem", on that condition I should allow him to do so. However, in any case, I shall not allow him to interrupt.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) raised certain matters. A substantial amount of money is available under the Bill for modernisation and improvement. It is not my job to dictate to the SSHA the areas in which it should be used or, indeed, the rate of modernisation in any particular scheme. I am not aware of the details of the Townhead scheme. However, if my hon. Friend cares to take up the matter with me, I shall look at it. It is a responsibility of the SSHA, and I am certain that the local authority and my hon. Friend can make direct representations to the SSHA.
I conclude by saying to the hon. Member for Cathcart that I welcome his constructive approach. As regards one and two-apartment houses, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have suggested to the SSHA that it should include those


in all future building schemes where appropriate. The hon. Gentleman will know, and will appreciate, that as the SSHA works closely—I am talking about Glasgow particularly in this context—with the district authority, it may well be that it could finish up by building none. That is not likely, but it would be part of an overall plan in terms of housing needs to discuss with the local authority which authority should be building one and two-apartment houses. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that, if the SSHA is building a sizeable scheme, rather than just family houses, there will be provision for one or two-apartment houses.
The allocation system works reasonably well. There is a greater awareness and we should encourage the good housing management policies of both housing authorities and the SSHA.
I only know what I have read in the Press about Glasgow reconsidering its policies. I assume that Glasgow, like other large authorities, is recognising that the Government are not attempting to achieve a housing programme simply in order that we can say that we were responsible for building more houses in the public sector than the previous Administration—although that would not be hard. Policies need to change, and they have to be more sophisticated and specialised. I am delighted that the Labour group in Glasgow are bringing new ideas to the problems that confront the city, although I understand that they have not yet made any decisions. My Department and the SSHA will give them all the help and encouragement that we can.
On the rents issue, I cannot give a guarantee but there is no intention of using the SSHA as a trend setter. It must reflect slightly higher rent levels because there is no rate fund contribution available to it. Until it is part of a longer-term housing finance review there will be anomalies. Like local authorities, it will need to make a contribution to rent increases in the future because of the public expenditure commitment, but I hope that it will be done in a fair and understanding manner. Because there are fewer housing authorities in Scotland it may be possible to obviate some of the anomalies.
In view of what I have said, I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart

will withdraw his amendment. I think that we have already had a Third Reading debate on it.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of the clear assurance that the SSHA will be allowed to continue the very good work that it did under the Conservative Government" I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

EDUCATION (SCHOOL-LEAVING DATES) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 2

FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND SOCIAL SECURITY

10.38 p.m.

Dr. Keith Hampson: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 9, leave out subsection (4).
Like my hon. Friends in the previous debate, I am moving the amendment in order to be constructive. There were a number of questions which the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security did not answer in Committee. The hon. Gentleman said then that he understood that there had been full consultation with the Institute of Careers Officers. But I understand that those parts of the Bill which relate to social security were not discussed with the Institute.
The careers officers are annoyed that they were never given a chance to discuss these matters. They were last asked to submit their views about the change of the school leaving age two years ago. I have a copy of their submissions to the Department of Education and Science. The Department of Health and Social Security has never approached the Institute to discuss the consequences of their changes.
The careers officers believe that, as I argued in Committee, the change from the phrase "over school age" to the age of 16 can cause certain anomalies, and is no improvement. The former Minister who dealt with the passage of the Bill in another place, Lord Crowther-Hunt, was


obviously reading from the same sort of brief as we heard in Committee. Both he and the Under-Secretary argued—to quote what the hon. Gentleman said in Committee—that
The effect is simply to secure that the earliest date from which a person becomes liable for contributions will be his sixteenth birthday, rather than as now, which is either the date on which he would be entitled to leave school or his sixteenth birthday, if the latter were later."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 11th March 1976; c. 85.]
We have not yet heard a satisfactory reason for the change, which has important wider consequences.
The Minister and I did not understand each other in Committee, and we did not clarify the matter. Let us assume that someone must stay at school until the Easter leaving date because his sixteenth birthday was on, say, 2nd September. He may decide to do part-time work in the Christmas vacation, and if he earns more than £13 a week he will be entitled to a national insurance number. The careers officer will supply the national insurance card.
The Government do not seem to understand the psychology of young people in the present employment situation, and they do not understand the psychology of employers. It is important to bring home to employers the consequences of the Bill. We need a major publicity drive such as that which followed the passage of the Sex Discrimination Act. The pupil, parent and employer are accustomed to regard the possession of a national insurance number as eligibility to a job, but that will not be the case. Once a pupil has a number, where is the incentive to stay in the classroom until Easter? Desperate for a job, is he not likely to grab anything and to play truant?
Through this provision the Government could undermine the whole concept of the raising of the school leaving age. They should be encouraging young people to stay on to do constructive work in the schools, or, as we suggested in amendments, to go into further education and obtain qualifications. Most of those leaving at Easter—80,000-odd of them—leave without qualifications. Instead, the provision will almost give a licence to play truant and to seek a job.
This matter is causing anxiety not only to the Opposition but to the Institute of Careers Officers. It arises from failure to understand the psychology of so many young people and the pressures on them.
Secondly, the Minister did not answer the narrower point about the period between pupils leaving school at the end of May and returning to take GCE examinations. Will he pay supplementary benefit for that period of six or seven weeks? A person of over 16 may decide to leave because his peer group has left and yet want to return for the examinations.
10.45 p.m.
Thirdly, I suggest that the cost will probably be greater than the Minister thinks. Many firms say that it is more satisfactory for them to take on young people at the end of August or early September. That is the time of year when the previous year's intake of apprentices has completed its training. If there were recruitment in June-July, no sooner would they be in employment than they would be in the holiday period. They would be in employment for such a short time that they would not be eligible for holiday payment. They would no doubt claim supplementary benefit. That would be an additional cost.
There is a glaring anomaly which I accept probably existed under former Conservative Governments, but it will be worsened by the Bill. By bringing forward the date on which pupils can leave school and standardising the date, if they are not to be hired until the end of August or early September they will be out of work for an additional eight or nine weeks in some areas. That is a long time for young people not to be employed. The Minister said in Committee:
The effect is simply to secure that the earliest date from which a person becomes liable for contributions will be his sixteenth birthday … The purpose is to ensure that there will continue to be no liability for contributions before a person reaches the age of 16."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 11th March 1976; c. 85–6.]
It is all very well saying that they are entitled to family allowances but the allowances go to the mothers. We must remember that in some instances the relationship between the son or daughter and the parents will not be good. The children will leave school early because


they will be entitled to do so, and they may not be able to get a job. They will not receive family allowance and they will not be entitled to supplementary benefit. What will happen to them?
By leaving the Bill as it stands we could be adding to the problems of delinquency and vandalism. The Government should consider the wider implications of the course that they propose to take. They should try to find an answer to what will be a worsening problem as long as the present employment situation exists, and which will occur again.
There is great dissatisfaction among careers officers. It is they who will have to operate the scheme. They do not understand why there should be this change to a specific date and they want an explanation, as do the Opposition. It seems that the change is pointless. I ask the Minister to delete the subsection and to leave matters as they stand.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Meacher): The hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) drew attention to the fact that in Committee on 11th March I implied that the Institute of Careers Officers had been consulted about the change to the age of 16 as the earliest date of liability for national insurance contributions.
The hon. Gentleman is correct to suggest that my understanding of this point was incorrect. However, I assure him that it is true that we have had close and detailed consultations with the Institute on the general operational arrangements for issuing national insurance numbers to young people. There have also been informal meetings—they have not amounted to consultations—with officials of the Institute since the Bill was presented.
It is true that the earliest date of liability for national insurance contributions had to be considered separately from the operational requirements for the registration of young people. Quite apart from the lack of time, I do not think it was a matter for consultation with outside bodies. The change will make a slight difference to the procedural arrangements in which the careers service is involved, but the officers of my Department will be approaching interested parties, including the careers

service, concerning the changes which will be necessary.
The effect of the amendment is to retain the attainment of school leaving age as the earliest point at which liability for Class I or Class 2 contributions, or the right to pay Class 3 contributions, can arise. Under present legislation, liability for contributions cannot arise until the person concerned is over school leaving age which, for this purpose, is effectively the same as the upper limit of compulsory school age for the purposes of the Family Allowances Act.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the link had not been maintained. If the link with family allowances had been maintained, the earliest start to liability for contributions this year from those who leave school in May would be a date in July—roughly coinciding with the end of the summer term—at which they will be deemed for family allowance purposes to reach the upper limit of compulsory school age or, if later, the date of their 16th birthday. This link could remain only for 1976 because next year the family allowance scheme will be replaced by the child benefit scheme. All this would be very confusing for employers and we therefore decided to sever the link between the "school leaving age" for national insurance purposes and the "upper limit for compulsory school age" for family allowance purposes.
We chose to make the direct link with the attainment of age 16 because this is the simplest and most readily understood concept. Having a common earliest time of contribution liability for all young people is a simpler concept for employers and employees to understand. Because of other changes which are taking place, it is important to have clear-cut rules for employers.
The change in the start of contribution liability is also consistent with the arrangements for national insurance benefits. Entitlement to retirement pension is related to the contribution record over a period beginning with the tax year in which age 16, not school leaving age, is reached. Finally, the change is consistent with other social security legislation, including family income supplements, supplementary benefits and child benefits, where the attainment of the age of 16 is the starting point for rights and


obligations. This is a simplification which will be welcomed by employers and employees.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether a person who is 16 at Christmas and then gets a national insurance number because he gets vacation work, would stay away from school and take illegal employment instead of remaining at school until Easter as he is required to do. I think that is very unlikely. Where a young person wishes to know his number before his school leaving date because he is over 16 or because he has earnings from a vacation or part-time job on which he is liable for contributions, he will be directed to the careers officer who will be able to supply it. The involvement of careers officers should be a reasonable safeguard against young people taking up full-time employment before they are entitled to do so. We do not think that there is much danger of this anyway because employers have the responsibility of ensuring that they do not engage young people in contravention of the statutory provisions concerning employment.
The leaflet accompanying the notification of a national insurance number expressly states that it is not an authority to work, and beyond that, which I hope will be sufficient in tthe great majority of cases, we are also considering the possibility of further safeguards.

Dr. Hampson: That is the important thing. Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the Government will keep this situation under review and possibly intensify the publicity if necessary? It was disturbing that in Committee the hon. Gentleman gave an absolute assurance that this sort of truancy would not happen, yet the only safeguard he offered was the careers officers, but they are concerned that the 80,000 people who leave at Easter without qualifications, often with no intention of taking examinations, would have no incentive to stay once they had their national insurance number. In great parts of the country many people will try to slip out of it. The hon. Gentleman's Department must try to educate the employers.

Mr. Meacher: Mr. Meacher rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I thought that the

Minister had sat down. If that was an intervention by the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson), it was some intervention.

Mr. Meacher: Those of us with experience of the hon. Member in Committee, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do not believe that paucity of words is his greatest virtue.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the means of support for young people under the age of 16 who might leave school and then not be able to get work. I think he suggested the possibility of supplementary benefits which might be given to persons who left in May prior to their returning in June to take O levels. I do not think that that is a realistic proposition. We take the view, as I am sure the Conservative Government did, that if children leave school under the age of 16 and are therefore not eligible for supplementary benefit, their parents have the same responsibility for maintaining them if they fail to find work as they would have had if the children had remained at school.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the financial implications for the national insurance fund. The sort of contribution liability of children reaching the age of 16 in the period February to June and leaving at the end of May is likely to be brought forward by Clause 2(1) by an average of only seven weeks. If their average earning were £25 a week, say—probably an optimistic estimate—the extra contributions paid would be about £½ million a year, to which would be added about £500,000 by Treasury supplement. That is the likely limit of extra involvement of the Exchequer in the national insurance fund. It is a small sum and it is perhaps an optimistic estimate.
There should also be some extra income from people for weekend or vocational work when over the age of 16 but still under school leaving age, and there are not likely to be many of them. This cannot be estimated with accuracy, but it may be about £30,000 to £40,000, to which would be added a Treasury supplement of about £6,000, a very small sum.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is assured that the changes proposed here


are for simplification, both for employers and employed, that there is no significant extra cost to the Exchequer, and that we shall liaise with the Institute of Careers Officers and seek to give full publicity to employers of the operation of this new control.

11.0 p.m.

Dr. Hampson: We are not entirely happy with the assurance, but I think that the Department has looked at the matter seriously. On that basis, and bearing in mind the other factors which the Minister has mentioned, particularly the education of employers and notifying them about the full significance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

11.1 p.m.

Dr. Hampson: We accept that the main aim is to deal with the difficult post-examination period, but nevertheless we are a little disturbed. There is a long period of time in which students may cause disruption—because there is nothing to motivate them any longer—or there is heavy truancy. It is not a tolerable situation.
We accept that the Bill is trying to deal with them, but why is it that, after over two years of discussions on this problem and others related, more has not been achieved?
In Committee and elsewhere the Government have recognised the existence of an ill-motivated group in the final year of school. The problem is not one that arises only after the examination period. It exists earlier on. There is a wider problem, and it is compounded by the lack of flexibility over this concept of the school leaving age. Students can, by the accident of birth, miss the leaving date by a few days, and have to stay on for virtually the whole extra school year, all but six weeks. There ought basically to be greater flexibility.
After two years of discussion the Government should have been able to do something more about this problem. We have heard from several Government spokesmen that they will do something about the 16s to 19s, with some sort of initiative on work-related and education-related courses. Why is it, there-fore,

that some 16-year-olds will have these more exciting opportunities while other 16-years-olds, because their birthdays fall in September, will be imprisoned in the classroom for a year?
There is a generation for whom the last year is a time not for learning but for killing time. Therefore, there ought to be more opportunities available to them. In particular, they ought to have the chance to leave the classroom and the school environment, to which they may have been hostile for many years, and to enter further education.
The Minister of State himself has pointed out that in the last five years the number of students taking GCE examinations in colleges of further education has gone up by 10 per cent. To use his own words, students are "choosing with their feet", in many cases taking O level in further education colleges. Before the raising of the school leaving age, many were going into further education colleges at 15. What is the point of now curtailing their opportunities?
There was an opportunity in the Bill to do more than has been done to redress this situation. That is the real gist of the argument. Surely some flexibility could have been achieved on the lines of Opposition amendments. There could have been the option to go into further education colleges, or into approved apprenticeships. That would have been eminently sensible. The students would have been under the broad umbrella of education, but there would have been more constructive pursuits for them to undertake, and they would have been better motivated.
I come back to the charge made on Second Reading about the battle with the Department of Employment, and particularly the influence of the trade unions on this Government. The trade unions are frightened, particularly at a time of tough economic conditions and mounting unemployment, that by bringing more people on to the labour market or allowing them to go into apprenticeships the situation will deteriorate. For two years, therefore, there has been a battle royal between the Departments and vested interests. It is not good enough from the educational point of view that this should happen. We have missed a great opportunity. It has been a tragic waste of an opportunity to give


a better deal to a very large body of young people.
The Department has two major Bills—this one and the Education Bill. When will the opportunity arise for further legislation? If the Department is concerned about the apprentice situation and the employment position from a trade union point of view it could have covered it. I have before me an Act of the State Parliament of Victoria, Australia, which has launched an imaginative scheme for providing a wide range of possibilities for the last year at school. There is a guarantee in the Act to safeguard the trade union position. This could have been done here. There has been enough time to get things ironed out.
In a situation fraught with difficulties for the teachers and headmasters—they are not in a happy situation—there was a chance to make more flexible provision. We on the Conservative Benches are not attacking the principle of Rosla. We do not say that it is not a good thing to extend the opportunities for education for this age group. We say that it should not necessarily take place within the school. I fully accept that since Rosla came in there has been a dramatic improvement in the numbers willing to acquire qualifications. In 1971–72, 43 per cent. of the age group left without taking any exams, whereas in 1973–74 the figure fell to only 19 per cent. That is a great achievement and I pay tribute to those in the schools who have helped to secure it and improve the motivation of young people. The Department's paper shows that there has been this success. It was my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition who brought about this reform.
There is no point in pursuing too narrow an objective, one which we fear could stultify the situation and be a positive disincentive to those whom we want to encourage to stay on and take exams. This, as I argued on the Amendment, affects those 80,000 or so who are forced to stay on until Easter and who often do not aim to take qualifications. There will also be a second disincentive effect. Many young people, particularly those from poor backgrounds—where family pressures are for them to

get out into employment—will heed the call from their mates in the classes who leave at the end of May and they will leave too. In a tight economic situation they will be desperate to get a job and not lose out to their mates. Why should they stay on, or come back to do GCE? Even if they do CSE, they may want to do GCE or be encouraged to do so by their teachers, yet there may now be a disincentive to them.
There is an awful lack of flexibility. We all experience this as constituency Members. I had a case of a girl who was 16 on 2nd September. She wanted to do a pre-nursing course in further education where she could take O levels. Her school, a fairly mediocre one, did not allow her to take O levels. If she had gone to the further education college she could have done O levels and the training course, which was what she most wanted to do. She could not get in at Easter and lost interest in the whole thing. There are examples of people who have done O levels and who will, because they are 16 after 1st September, have to stay on until Easter. The frustration is great. We feel that the Government have not understood what is happening on the ground in the schools—have not understood the psychology of young people and have wasted a great opportunity.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Neil Macfarlane: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson), I was concerned that in Committee the Government were not represented by a bona fide Minister from the Department of Education and Science. Many of us feel that as the Bill has taken a lot of time to get to the House and although we approve of the underlying principle behind it, nonetheless it could have been much better planned and embraced many more of those aspects which are so necessary within our education system.
This is an enabling piece of legislation but we are concerned that a Minister from the Department of Education and Science was not present during the Committee stage. The Government sent along the Minister for the Arts to lead for the Government. That is a depressing situation when one considers that the Minister took a long time to explain that he was attached to the Department of Education


and Science, even though he was situated not at that Department's headquarters in SEI, but in the lusher pastures of SW1 where, in his own words:
… physically I am detached and in Belgrave Square, and I find this of great benefit and advantage, and useful to my primary job…."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 9th March, 1976; c. 40.]
I should have thought, from reading the papers a few weeks ago on the subject of fire-bricks and his assiduity in sponsoring that particular purpose, that his presence might well have been better off in the Department of Housing and Construction or perhaps the Department of Energy.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gerry Fowler): Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to the Bill, because that would make a change after the past two or three minutes?

Mr. Macfarlane: Yes, I shall certainly address myself to the Bill. I am grateful for that intervention from the Minister. I wish he had addressed himself to the Bill in Committee instead of sending along his hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts. That might have saved Mr. Deputy Speaker and the House a lot of time.
As the Minister is so anxious to intervene, will he address himself to the question of external approved apprenticeship schemes? This is something which could have been introduced into the Bill and which is gravely lacking.
Although I do not fully agree with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon, who said that he was in favour of raising the school leaving age, I believe that now that we have this feature we must make it work. One way in which we could assist the classrooms and teachers is for the Government to encourage the external approved apprenticeship scheme, and that could have been included in the Bill. I should like the Minister's comments on this matter, because I believe, essentially, that, despite the late hour and the heavy programme he has had in recent weeks, no doubt in propping up his Department he would wish to make an observation on this matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Even at this late hour when there is plenty of time to speak and business is exempted,

we have to stick to the Standing Orders. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to discuss only what is in the Bill and not what he would like to be in it.

Mr. Macfarlane: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your observations, which I shall always endeavour to follow.
I would be grateful if the Minister would comment upon this particular feature. It is of paramount importance, not necessarily in the Bill, but in the future——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall not allow the Minister to reply to something not in the Bill and I ask the hon. Gentleman not to maintain his invitation to the Minister.

Mr. Macfarlane: I am sorry if I incurred your displeasure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this is a matter of considerable importance. The Bill, which is shortly to be finalised, is important enabling legislation, but there are many grave disadvantages by its introduction at this time.

11.14 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: I do not intend to detain the House long, but as the only Scottish Member who served on the Committee I cannot let the Third Reading pass without speaking.
The hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) showed grave misjudgment when he spoke of the Bill dealing only with the post-examination situation for children at school. He showed a Conservative attitude to education—namely, that education can be measured only by people's qualifications. We in Scotland do not believe that people's qualifications are what count at the end of the day. As more and more children stay on at school to take O grades, or O levels, as they are called south of the border, employers raise the qualifications for children entering employment and that is a disadvantage for those children who would probably be defined as non-academic.
As I argued in Committee, I do not think that the Bill goes far enough. Educationists argue for greater flexibility in school leaving dates, but we as politicians tend to take a very authoritarian attitude to the amount of time that children spend at school. We see attendance


at school as being the same as education, but the two are not necessarily identical. I do not want to go back over the educational seminars that I had at university, where we spent hours trying to define the importance of education. That was a semantic and academic argument.
There should be flexibility in school leaving dates. A child who leaves school and moves into post-school education is much more likely to benefit than one who is forced to stay on as an unwilling learner. I know that there is a severe economic climate, but I ask the Government to consider extending post-school activities.

11.16 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gerry Fowler): Most of the matters raised in this short debate—I might add, not short enough—have not been apposite to a Third Reading debate because they have concerned what is not in the Bill rather than what is in it. While I admire the remarkable prolixity of the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson), with which he entertains us twice weekly upstairs in Committee, I confess that my admiration does not extend to sympathy. I sympathise with him, of course, in his bid to establish a permanent place on the Opposition Front Bench, but I advise him that he might achieve that place more easily by brevity rather than by prolixity.
The nub of the hon. Gentleman's speech was more or less the nub of the speech by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain), but she managed to say it more briefly. It was that there is great concern in the House that children should have the opportunity, if that be in their best educational interests, to proceed to another educational environment instead of staying at school. That is an important point, but it does not have much to do with the Bill. The Bill is designed to deal with a much shorter-term problem. The hon. Member for Ripon said that the Government had had two years to deal with this matter. His Government had three years of planning before they raised the school leaving age, but they implemented the change in such a way that even now we have had to come back with this Bill to tidy up a purely technical matter.
The hon. Member asks why children cannot on the one hand leave school and go straight into technical training, and, on the other, why they cannot leave and go into further education. He is posing two entirely different questions. In the first case they are going into employment-cum-training, and in the second they are continuing with their full-time education in a different environment. I reject the first question out of hand and will not detain the House as this matter was fully discussed in Committee. The second is an interesting point, but, as he knows, there are major problems over the assimilation of the regulations covering schools and those covering further education. While it is an interesting question, therefore, it is not one which could possibly have been dealt with in the Bill.
This is a useful minor measure, but no more than that. I hope we shall make more progress in the future in determining the best method of continuing education for 16-year-olds.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

FACTORIES, BRENT (CLOSURE)

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I bring to the attention of the House, as is my right and privilege, an acute concern throughout my constituency and the Londot resulting from basic economic changes. That acute concern is not about a sudden disaster or some cataclysmic action which has taken place. It is about a vital and fundamental change in the economic structure of my area which has been taking place over the last 15 years. Unlike the sudden disease of cancer in the National Health Service to which all the drama is attached, this problem goes on and causes fundamental changes which alter the social structure and the responsibility of local government.
Since I entered this House in 1959 I have witnessed a complete change in the


economic structure in two major areas where there are industrial estates—Park Royal and Alperton—which contain many major factories and small engineering concerns. The giants remain—Guinness, Heinz Baked Beans, United Biscuits, Rolls-Royce and London buses. But some of them, instead of enlarging, are inclined to shift. One has gone to Southall and another to the North on an IDC. Although the employment situation remains comparatively steady, there is no new intake of school leavers into those companies.
In the Willesden area—which I originally represented in this House—since 1972 there have been 40 closures, six of them in January this year, with a loss of 3,822 jobs. The Department of Employment has had 133 redundancy notifications in the same time with a loss of nearly 10,000 jobs.
In Wembley, which is more of a residential area, except for the Alperton industrial estate and some parts of North Wembley, there have been seven closures involving just under 1,000 jobs. The Department of Employment has had 26 redundancy notices involving a total of 2,500 jobs.
I am not only raising unemployment as a major problem about which I hope the Government will do something. Indeed, I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry, is on the Front Bench, because this problem covers a number of Government Departments. I am seeking to stimulate a combined operation between a number of Departments where the responsibility lies in an attempt to provide a solution to this problem. My hon. Friend faced a similar debate last week, because my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) referred to similar problems there. My hon. Friend pointed to concern about the change in the social mix in his area and said that if we were not careful our areas would become one large industrial warehouse in place of skilled engineering.
One problem is that often the skilled engineer, who is still capable of making a great contribution to productivity, at the age of 53 or 54 becomes a window cleaner. That has happened in the last 10 years in my constituency. People with roots in the area do not move out. If there are no jobs calling for their skills,

they change to something less skilled and less well paid.
The population decline is not reflected in my area, because it has one of the largest immigrant communities in the country. We have always had a fluctuating population in the early years of settlement. We have probably taken in more Ugandans and Kenyan Asians than any other area. This also applies in the early years to constituencies in Padding-ton, Ealing, Kensington and Acton. Racial tension hardly exists in my area because of the activity of the Community Relations Commission. But many young coloured teenagers who were born in the constituency find that skilled jobs are not available. They get a chip on their shoulders because they think that they get only unskilled jobs not for economic reasons but because of the colour of their skin.
In July 1975 there was 2 million sq. ft. of empty factory space in my constituency. I commend the GLC's efforts to convert them to smaller workshops and factories. A private developer has converted the Old Unigate site into smaller factories. There are many non-conforming factories, however, in old Willesden, which was built up in Queen Victoria's day. It would help if factories were shifted from residential areas to empty space on industrial estates. What support can my borough get to convert some of that space for smaller factories?
It is sometimes said that we must accept this position because of the world recession. But this problem has existed in my constituency for 12 years and the recession has not lasted that long. Over eight years ago, 2,000 jobs were lost when Sir Arnold Weinstock rationalised the AEI factory, which made transformers for the Kariba Dam, and absorbed it into the GEC complex. The Wembley firm of Witton James is under threat of being axed.
There is great concern among my constituents who work at Associated Automation, where there is a possibility of 400 redundancies. It is hoped that that factory will not close, because it is a traditional area of employment. The first telephones in the Palace of Westminster were made by Halls Telephones, the forerunner of Associated Automation.
The company now makes stamp machines, coin boxes and telephone


equipment for the Post Office. Has the Minister any influence with Sir William Ryland? These redundancies could be avoided if, instead of diversifying, the Post Office increased the work which is done by Associated Automation. Councillor Norman Howard, one of our GLC councillors, is also an official of the Post Office Engineering Union. He claims that there could be enough additional work from the Post Office to avoid so many redundancies. GEC seems to be concerned only with profitability, and rationalisation. Profitability counts most and productivity counts least. I hope that the Government will look into this.
I support the general case of the GLC, which is based on seven points: a relaxation of IDC policy; relief from the constraints on publicity for London; selective assistance to industry in London; representation of London's industrial situation on the National Enterprise Board; support for the development and improvement of London's infrastructure; consultation with the council where there are implications for industrial employment in the council's area; and a Government-appointed committee of inquiry to examine regional development policies and propose policies for alleviating high unemployment in non-assisted areas.
It is not simply a question of numbers. We want a balance of skills and a balanced community. We do not want a large area of unskilled people. My community can be alive and breathing—a living personality as it was years ago—only if it has a social life and good amenities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pleads for the ability to take advantage of the upturn in trade. I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that my area can now—not when the upturn takes place—have the facilities to take advantage and become a spearhead of economic production leading to prosperity.

11.31 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie): My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) has raised a subject which has concerned him for a considerable time, as it has concerned a number of London Members. He will appreciate that some time ago the Secretary of State met leaders of the GLC and others to

discuss these specific problems. I have had the opportunity to meet members of the GLC to discuss some of the issues raised tonight.
We had a similar debate to this last week so we now have a fair appreciation of the situation in London. These matters concern not only me but my other hon. Friends in the Department of Employment and the Department of the Environment. The points that my hon. Friend has made tonight will be borne in mind, not only by Ministers in the Department of Industry but by Ministers in other Departments who are also concerned about the welfare of London.
My hon. Friend has described the problems created by factory closures in his constituency. He drew attention to these problems some time ago. There is no doubt that Brent has been particularly unfortunate in the number of factory closures that have occurred in recent years, but this must be seen in the context of the major changes occurring in the pattern of population and employment in the South-East.
My hon. Friend raised the question of Post Office ordering, which I shall dispose of quickly. Together with the Secretary of State for Industry I have responsibility in sponsoring terms for the Post Office. It is no part of my responsibility, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish me to assume such a responsibility, which is contrary to the spirit of the 1969 Act, to consult the Post Office over ordering. I am sure that the Chairman of the Post Office Board and his colleagues will read my hon. Friend's comments and bear them in mind. I turn to the general situation in London. Between 1961 and 1974 manufacturing employment in London declined by nearly half a million—and we are conscious of the seriousness of that—while employment in the rest of the South-East increased by about 900,000, a quarter of the jobs being in manufacturing. These substantial changes over a relatively short time have taken place in a situation in which London's population has also been in decline, but over a much longer period. As with employment, the population of the rest of the South-East has been increasing. This redistribution of people and jobs in the South-East is obviously


interrelated. In this period the growth of population in the new towns, the expanding towns, South Hampshire and the Home Counties has attracted industry out of London. However, it would be misleading of me to suggest that the decline in manufacturing employment in London arises from the movement of industry—either to the new and expanding towns or to the assisted areas—because of the Government's regional policies, as someone has suggested.
My Department has recently studied in depth the decline in industrial employment in London between 1966 and 1974. In that period manufacturing employment fell by over 380,000. But only 27 per cent. of these jobs were lost as a result of firms moving from London to other parts of the country. I should point out, indeed, that only 9 per cent. were the result of movement to the assisted areas.
The main cause of the decline in employment, accounting for nearly half the total reduction, was the simple closure of premises without any corresponding opening elsewhere. This is the pattern in my hon. Friend's own borough, where about 17,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost due to factory closures in this period—of which 68 per cent. were complete closures, as my hon. Friend mentioned. I think that my hon. Friend will accept some of these closures arise from the present economic recession. Once the economy revives—and there are now some hopeful signs of this beginning to happen—industry in London will be among the first to benefit. I take the point made by my hon. Friend, that when we have an upturn boroughs such as his should be in a position to take advantage of it and take up the challenges afforded by it.
I recognise, however, that this excessively large closure rate among manufacturing firms in London is not simply the result of our current economic difficulties; it is promarily the result of the unfavourable environment in which many of them have to operate. Too many firms in London have had to operate in old, inefficient premises, where there is no room to expand when the need arises and where there are all too often the added burdens of traffic congestion, labour shortages, high rents and rates. I can assure my hon. Friend that

we are conscious of these things and bear them in mind within the Department.
I have to say, however, that the solution to some of these problems is in the hands of the GLC and the London boroughs. I take my Friend's point about the seven points of the GLC—of which we are very conscious—and we shall expect to get co-operation from the GLC in these matters.
Despite the heavy loss of manufacturing industry in London over the last decade or so, it remains one of the most important concentrations of industry in the country, and if our economic recovery is to blossom it is vital that London's industry should be efficient and able to flourish and invest. The Government are anxious to see all industry invest at present. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware of the Government's decision to make more funds available for companies who are prepared to bring forward deferred capital projects and for companies in certain sectors of industry to invest in new plant and machinery. All of these measures are, of coure, available to London firms, and they can be of substantial assistance.
My hon. Friend raised the point—I rather expected he would, because it has been raised by the GLC—about IDC control in the London area. It has been suggested by some people that IDC control is preventing industrial development in London. Frankly, I do not believe that to be so. The IDC control is certainly an essential part of the Government's regional policies, whose aim is to encourage firms able to expand and develop in the assisted areas. I assure my hon. Friend that this control is operated most sensitively. As proof of that, since 1971 94 per cent. of all IDC applications have been approved for London as a whole.
The Government have in the last year made two relaxations in the IDC control which should be of value to London in its present circumstances. My hon. Friend may remember that my hon. Friend and predecessor as Minister of State, the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), told the House in February 1975 that no IDC application of less than 10,000 square feet would be refused in London without having been seen personally by the Secretary of State. That


system has been operating since then. My hon. Friend may also remember my statement to the House last month when in expressing my concern at the number of empty and obsolete factories in the major conurbations, I outlined the experimental scheme we are introducing which will permit IDCs to be issued—subject to certain conditions—for the speculative replacement of these obsolete buildings by modern industrial premises. This scheme should facilitate industrial renewal in the older parts of cities such as London, and I hope that industrialists and developers in Brent, as in the rest of the metropolis, will take full advantage of this scheme. My hon. Friend has mentioned the high levels of unemployment in London and particularly within his constituency. He has done this vigorously not only tonight but on many occasions with me, both publicly and privately. I realise that unemployment in his part of London has risen markedly over recent months, but it should be remembered that London still has a lower rate of unemployment than almost any other part of the United Kingdom. With an unemployment rate of 3·7 per cent., London's rate is well below the national level of 5·6 per cent. and even further below the rate of Scotland and Wales. Even within London the employment exchange areas of Wembley and Willesden, which cause my hon. Friend great concern, have fared somewhat better than Greater London as a whole in terms of the increase in unemployment in the current recession. I am not trying to underrate the difficulties experienced by my hon. Friend's constituents at the present

time, but merely to put them within a wider perspective of London as a whole.
My hon. Friend expressed his concern for the future of industry in Brent and London. I can assure him that we examine very closely the changes at all major London establishments, and under the Government's new Employment Protection Act we shall have at least 90 days' advance warning where 100 or more redundancies are concerned. This advance notice will give Departments and agencies the opportunity to consider whether any special scheme is appropriate or practicable in every case.
My hon. Friend will be pleased, as I am, that the actions of the present Government have ensured that appropriate warnings of industrial difficulties have now to be given in time for action to be taken. The National Enterprise Board and the new arrangements for planning agreements will also strengthen our hands in anticipating and dealing with future problems of this nature.
I appreciate the very real concern of my hon. Friend and other colleagues in the London area about the problems that my hon. Friend has outlined this evening and at other times. I can only conclude by repeating the undertaking I gave to our hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) in the House last week, that Ministers of all Departments will continue to co-operate with my hon. Friend and all London Labour Members of Parliament, because we all want to see a prosperous London in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

Second Reading Committee

Wednesday 17th March 1976

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Sir Thomas Williams (in the Chair)

Atkinson, Mr. Norman (Tottenham)

Bean, Mr. R. E. (Rochester and Chatham)

Boardman, Mr. Harold (Leigh)

Boyden, Mr. James (Bishop Auckland)

Carter-Jones, Mr. Lewis (Eccles)

Dunn, Mr. James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

Higgins, Mr. Terence L. (Worthing)

Oakes, Mr. Gordon (Under-Secretary of State for the Environment)

Orbach, Mr. Maurice (Stockport South)

Pardoe, Mr. John (Cornwall, North)

Raison, Mr. Timothy (Aylesbury)

Roberts, Mr. Albert (Normanton)

Royle, Sir Anthony (Richmond-upon Thames)

Shersby, Mr. Michael (Uxbridge)

Tebbit, Mr. Norman (Chingford)

Townsend, Mr. Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

Wakeham, Mr. John (Maldon)

MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (DISSOLUTION) BILL [Lords]

10.30 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): I beg to move,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Maplin Development Authority (Dissolution) Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
The need for this Bill derives from a decision in July 1974 to abandon the Maplin project for the third London airport. The Maplin Development Authority was set up under the Maplin Development Act 1973 to reclaim land at Maplin and Foulness Sands for the establishment of an airport and a seaport. On the abandonment of the project my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment directed the Authority to cease further activity and to discharge its obligations. He also promised to seek powers for its dissolution as soon as this was convenient.
The Authority has complied with my right hon. Friend's direction and is left with no useful function but with a capital debt of £2·3 million. Of this,

£1·2 million is the initial debt in respect of expenses incurred by the Secretary of State before the establishment of the Authority, and £1·1 million is subsequent borrowing by the Authority. It now has no means of repaying this money to the National Loans Fund, as required by the 1973 Act, and unless action is taken to cancel the debt, the Authority will be compelled to increase the debt even further by borrowings to meet interest charges.
In addition, the Authority must prepare annual accounts and the Secretary of State must lay these, and an annual report, before Parliament even though the Authority no longer does the job it was set up for.
This Bill removes these anomalies by dissolving the Authority, writing off the accrued debt and repealing the whole of the 1973 Act. The Bill can be simple because no order was made under the 1973 Act, enabling the Authority to start the works authorised by the Act, and the Authority's operations did not go


beyond the survey and design stages. There is, in particular, therefore, no need to continue any of the compensation provisions of the 1973 Act or any of the protection which the Act afforded to various authorities and interests.

Clause 1 is a normal form or provision which would enable the Secretary of State to dissolve the Maplin Development Authority by order, exerciseable by Statutory Instrument, which shall be laid before Parliament after having been made. The Authority's property, rights and liabilities are transferred to the Secretary of State for a period during which the final accounts are prepared and audited; following this, the Authority is dissolved.

Clause 2 provides for the necessary writing off of the Authority's total indebtedness. It defines the Authority's final accounting period and enables the Secretary of State to meet any winding up expenses.

Clause 3 provides for the consequential repeal of the enactments listed in the Schedule. These include the whole Maplin Development Act 1973.

This is a formal and functional Act, but in view of comments made when the Bill was in another place I should, perhaps, also explain that, flowing from its firm decision not to build a major new airport at Maplin, the Government embarked on a wide-ranging review of airports policy. A consultation document "Airport strategy for Great Britain: Part 1 The London area" was published last November and a companion document, dealing with airports in the rest of the country, will be published some time after Easter. The consultations are being carried on jointly by the Department of Trade and by my Department to ensure that planning, access and environmental, as well as the aviation aspects, are properly taken into account.

The local authorities, airport authorities, amenity groups and other organisations affected by airport developments are all being consulted; and at least six months will be afforded from the date of publication of each document. After completion of all these consultations, the Government will put proposals before Parliament and there will therefore be a

considerable opportunity for debate both inside and outside the House. But it would be premature and inappropriate for the Government to express substantive views on airports policy in the future during the proceedings on this Bill which, I repeat, is a functional Bill dealing with the dissolution of the Maplin Authority.

10.35 a.m.

Mr. Terence Higgins: There are few more hackneyed phrases in the English language than that of T. S. Eliot's, that things end with a whimper rather than a bang. Going through the various debates which we have had on the subject of Maplin over the years, and having discovered that the bound volumes are something over a foot in height, I could not help feeling that this Bill is very much a whimper at the end of a considerable number of almost supersonic bangs.
The Minister's speech was in much the same tone as the Bill itself. I think that perhaps I should make clear one or two points, because the policy of the Conservative Government was made clear between 1970 and 1974 and we had many debates on the subject, in which strong views were expressed on both sides of the argument, not necessarily on a partisan basis. The Labour Government took a decision on the issue 18 months or more ago, and as with all such matters the element of time is important. There is the old adage about economists not changing the questions but the answers. I suggest that that is true. It may be that with changing circumstances one needs to re-appraise the position.
The Secretary of State for Trade, in his statement on 18th July 1974, pointed out that the beneficial effects on the environment which we foresaw as far as Maplin was concerned would not be likely to be significant before 1985. Since then, we have had a further period of delay so that the date is now presumably the late 1980s. In addition, it is clear that, as a result of the Government's complete failure to control inflation in their first 18 months in office, the enormous wage explosion we experienced, and the fact that a great amount of resources and money were used up in that period, we now find, within the context of the public expenditure White Paper, a situation necessitating massive cuts in public expenditure. It is probable that a great many more cuts may be necessary in the light of the


policies we have experienced over the past couple of years.
From the point of view of what, in the technical sense, one might call discounting—that is, that the benefits are deferred and that the expense would be immediate—plainly that affects our views on the priority which should be given to such a project in relation to the overall requirements of various groups, from pensioners through to other individual categories of desirable public expenditure.
In his statement on 18th July, 1974, I notice that the Secretary of State himself pointed out that we should need to review the position as time went on in the light of changing technology. On that issue, I am sure that that is the right approach. It would be wrong to take a firm view on the project as a possibility at this stage. At all events, the Government are pressing on with their own proposals, which is the reason for the Bill.
We need to ask the Minister, who is concerned with the environment, precisely what consideration was given to the environmental effects of the change in policy announced by the Secretary of State, which the Bill takes a stage further. There can be no doubt that, from an environmental point of view, there is still great concern about the effect of aircraft noise, a subject to which the hon. Gentleman made no reference today. He certainly did not deal with the question in any depth.
There is certainly considerable cause for concern about the growth of London Airport and the development at Gatwick. At Gatwick, not only aircraft noise but also the development around Gatwick, particularly combined with Crawley New Town, may continually erode upon the very precious areas of countryside which surround that area. If we get both the build-up of the airport and the build-up on the commercial and industrial side, the implications for the environment there are very serious indeed. This problem weighed heavily with the Conservative Government in considering the alternative project at Maplin.
Therefore, what further views has the hon. Gentleman from an environmental point of view about the growth in aircraft noise? Clearly, we are now reaching a period—and this brings me again to the

importance of timing and the impossibility of taking any firm view at this stage—when the present generation of aircraft is obviously getting towards the end of its useful life in many cases. I was rather surprised to discover recently that the Boeing 707, which is a noisy aircraft, had been in operation since 1959. This is a considerable length of time and, obviously, with the new generation of aircraft we ought to be able to make progress.
What consideration has the Department given to an idea to which I have been giving some thought—I have not reached a firm conclusion on it but it does seem to have some helpful aspects—namely, whether there is a case for airlines, as far as noise is concerned, having a fleet limitation imposed upon them? In addition to there being limits on individual aircraft, one should give some incentive to airlines to move towards quieter aircraft by saying that there is a maximum amount of noise that the airline can make in relation to its total traffic load over a given period of time. I believe that this idea has something to recommend it. If the Government are determined to pursue the course which is embodied in the Bill, and in the light of the delay which has already arisen, it is vitally important that they should give the greatest possible attention to the idea.
I am aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade is concerned about this issue, but in the context of the Bill it would be helpful to have an initial view, as far as the environment is concerned, from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. The hon. Gentleman referred to the document "Airport strategy for Great Britain". Part 1 of this has been published on the London area and deals, of course, with a number of the points which I have just mentioned. However, we understand that there are further parts to come and perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us how he sees their timing.
Many people feel that one must look at airport strategy overall. There is a certain parallel with motorways. People in some parts of the country want motorways desperately. Conversely, there are other parts of the country where people would do anything to avoid having motorways. Motorways and airport noise are emotive subjects.
However, I should have thought that in some areas there has been a move towards industrial and commercial development. For example, the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham, is close to London for rail travel—indeed, in travel time it is not much further away than Gatwick. It would be helpful to know when the Government's proposals on that part of the country in particular are likely to be available to the House. Can the Minister give us an assurance that we shall have an opportunity to debate the airport stategy overall when the documents have been presented?
On 18th July 1974, the Secretary of State stated:
I am sure that the House will wish to debate the matter of London air passenger traffic as soon as it has had a reasonable time to consider the review." [Official Report, 18th July 1974; Vol. 877, c. 676.]
That was back in July 1074, but to the best of my knowledge no opportunity whatsoever has been provided by the Government. From July 1974 to March 1976 is probably sufficient time to consider the review. The House certainly has not had a chance to deal with these wider issues. As the Minister said, the Bill is a narrow one and has been taken upstairs for that reason. We have not had a chance to debate this matter overall. The clear implication of the Secretary of State's remarks that we would have an opportunity to do so has not been fulfilled. It is important, when consultation has taken place, that we should have an opportunity to debate the matter.
I should like to ask a couple of questions, one specifically concerning the Bill and the other on a broader point about Maplin itself. An interesting addition was made to the Bill in the House of Lords, namely, Clause 3(3), which is said to be concerned with the question of privilege. It was not clear exactly what that meant in this context. Clause 3(3) states:
Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds, or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such charge m any manner, or affect the assessment, levying, administration or application of any money raised by any such charge.
That is a remarkable paragraph in many ways.
I have seldom seen anything drafted quite as widely. It seems to be saying that nothing in the Act should have any effect on anyone anyhow. If that is so, it is a little difficult to reconcile with the rest of the Bill, which obviously writes off part of the accrued debt of the authority. If the accrued debt is written off, I presume it has some effect on the National Debt, which in turn has some effect on the interest which the Government have to pay, which in turn presumably has some effect on the tax which you, Sir Thomas, have to pay, though it may not be very significant in this context. Therefore I should have thought that this Bill imposes if not a charge, a variation of such a charge on you, for example, Sir Thomas. I therefore have a little difficulty, from a technical point of view, in understanding exactly how it is that your income tax is to some extent reduced, albeit very slightly reduced, whereas the subsection apparently says that it cannot be.

Mr. Oakes: I am sure the hon. Gentleman must be joking. As a former Treasury Minister, he knows that this is the standard form which is put in all Bills introduced in another place that involve money. It can then be removed in the Commons, but that is the traditional wording on all such Bills introduced upstairs.

Mr. Higgins: I understand that point, but I thought it might be helpful to establish that it is the Government's intention to eliminate the provision at a later stage. I presume that in Committee the Minister will delete it.

The Chairman: Perhaps I may be of help. I understand the procedure to be normal and formal, and that, during consideration in this House, the provision will be deleted.

Mr. Higgins: That is most helpful, Sir Thomas. I do not want to be pedantic about it. It is just that it is important that we should get our legislation in proper form. I was puzzled as to why it was not being done in the first instance. I assume, from what has been said, that it was a straight drafting error in the first place, and what their Lordships have done is correct the drafting error in order to enable us to knock it out at a later stage. If that is not so, perhaps the Minister can clear up the matter. I am


very anxious that we should not have legislation which—given the welter of legislation we have to consider at present—subsequently, in some horrible technical manner, has nasty repercussions in the courts.
Finally, I recall that there was a great deal of discussion, when the Maplin proposal was under consideration, about Maplin Sands and the firing range. I think a great deal of clearance took place with regard to various shells and other explosive objects which had been left in the Sands from the firing range. I am not clear what the position is now. Has the work now been completed? If so, what do the Government intend to do about the future of the Sands?
Alternatively, if that is not the position and the work has not been completed, do the Government propose simply to exclude the Sands from future use and to leave such explosive objects there for the indefinite future? I do not recall precisely the details but, on balance, I think it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify the position.
Given the Government's decision and the implications of the delay which has taken place, I would not recommend my hon. Friends to vote against the Bill, but, at the same time, the Government's present proposals for airport strategy give considerable cause for concern. As the Secretary of State himself said—and I think he was right—we need to look at all the possible alternatives for airport development as time goes on in the light of the developing situation, both economically and technically.

10.51 a.m.

Mr. John Wakeham: My constituents would wish me, I think, to wish this Bill well and to bid farewell to Maplin Airport. Two years ago, when elected, I pledged to do all I could to stop the building of the airport at Maplin. It would be presumptuous of me to claim a great victory when in fact I had little to do to further that cause, other factors having taken control. The only thing I did was to get very cross with British Rail in its attempt to build a rail link before the Maplin project received the final approval of the House.
I always took the view, as I think did most of my constituents, that if there was to be a third London airport there was a very strong case for it to be located at Maplin. But the initial case for it was weak and got weaker as time went by. Therefore, now that the Maplin airport plans have finally been laid to rest—obviously, no one can foretell the future or be sure that circumstances will not arise to necessitate resurrection of the plans—I am very pleased that, so far, nobody has suggested that there is any likelihood of the plans being resurrected. The area has suffered considerable delay in developing normally because of the uncertainty over Maplin, and we now have a very important job in thinking out our new plans and developing them. We want to get down to that in south-east Essex without any future possibility of resurrecting the Maplin plan as there are important and difficult problems to deal with. Also, from a national standpoint, we have considerable problems of airport strategy, particularly for the regions.
Did any of the expenditure covered by this figure of £2·3 million in fact cover anything other than plans and survey work, and so on, because a view has been expressed in my constituency that some part of the trial island constructed off Shoeburyness by the Port of London Authority was in some way paid for from this expenditure? I gather this is not so from what the Minister said, but can he confirm it?
Finally, I know that all the plans and so on for the airport are secure in the the Department of Environment library, but lessons that cannot be put into any library should also be learned from this exercise particularly as far as the seaport project is concerned, and I hope that the fullest possible consultations will take place with everybody involved before any plans for that go ahead, not merely with the Port of London Authority, as the seaport is as much part of a national strategy as airports. I support the Bill.

10.55 a.m.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: The gift of prophecy is given to very few people, as the events of the past week have underlined. Those who have forecast various dates upon which Heathrow Airport would be


filled to over-capacity lacked the gift of accurate prophecy.
I was amongst those who opposed this project, but, in fairness, it offered hope that, if built, it would give relief to those living near Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and Southend, if, of course, those airports had been either closed or restricted upon the opening of Maplin. But the Government, having brought work on the project to and end, have effectively put the date on which Maplin could open—if someone were to take the decision to restart the project—back to the 1990s rather than, as was hoped, about 1980. It is clear from the figures produced in the Department of Trade Document "Airport strategy for Great Britain: Part I" that by then substantial relief will have come to residents near the existing airports from the technical developments which are not merely promised but in being in the new aircraft in service.
Even with an opening date of 1980, I feel that the balance of advantage to residents near airports, as against the disadvantages of the Maplin scheme, caused the unbiased observer to find against Maplin, though, of course, a number of other unbiased observers came to exactly the opposite conclusion. But with a 1990 date the balance is decisively against the Maplin project.
The public expenditure argument is now completely overwhelming. I am not sure whether even the Tribunites want greater public expenditure on Maplin, or whether the Secretary of State for the Environment still holds the view that all public expenditure is essentially good, but he realised fortunately that the Maplin expenditure did not fit into his general thesis.
We should be given a better idea of the Government's attitude toward the protection of the environment, in its broadest sense, around the existing airports. We should certainly have in the House the long-promised debate on the subject. When it takes place, I will make my speech then—not this morning, to the relief of everyone in the Committee.
I should like to ask a few questions. First, does the Minister know what Ministry of Defence expenditure was incurred in the search by the Ministry of Defence for a new range to replace the Foulness

range? Is that expenditure written off under past or even future defence votes, or is any part of it involved in the sums of money we are writing off today? The Minister may not know the answers to those questions.
I refer to the Schedule entitled "Enactments repealed". I find difficulty in guessing, though perhaps I should have looked it up before now, how the Bill involves the repeal of part of the land Land Drainage Act 1930. I am sure that no one, when legislating that Act had Maplin in mind. Perhaps the Minister could satisfy my curiosity on that point.
Having put those questions, I do not want to delay the Bill in any way.

11.0 a.m.

Mr. Oakes: There is remarkable unanimity in the Committee today.
The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) rightly brought with him massive tomes containing the history of Maplin from its early stages and the long Committee sittings that we had. If my tone today in opening this debate was somewhat funereal, it was fitting and proper, because if one has acted as executioner, when the funeral of that which has been executed takes place, one does not expect joyous hilarity. Therefore, for the burial of Maplin, the tone had to be appropriate.
I turn to some of the general points made by the hon. Member for Worthing and the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbitt) on general environmental questions. This is not the time to go into them, but I will correct the hon. Member who said that the Bill arises purely from the Government's approach to public expenditure. I remind him that the decision made by my right hon. Friend was made within weeks of the Government taking office. It was a decision made on principle, because most of the environmental arguments that led us to the decision to abandon Maplin were rehearsed over and again in Committee, to which previous Governments chose to keep their ears totally closed.
We have frequently pointed out that even were Maplin to proceed, it would have no major impact on Gatwick or Heathrow airports. We pointed out then—and these are environmental considerations that led us to the review of airport strategy, and it was known when Maplin was going through—that aeroplanes were


becoming quieter, and that larger-bodied aircraft were carrying more people and therefore there were fewer aircraft.
Those were major considerations in deciding whether to build a third London airport or whether to use the maximum potential at existing airports—not only the London airports but regional airports. The hon. Member for Chingford knows from experience that aircraft are becoming increasingly quieter—with one exception, which I shall not go into.
I found quite startling the figures, graphs and NNI contours that are shown in the London document on airport strategy, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman did also. I knew that we were going in this direction, but when I saw the revision of the figures—hopefully fewer people would be affected by aircraft noise compared with the numbers affected at present—I was convinced that we were right. The massive public expenditure on Maplin that would have taken place would have been wasted expenditure in the light of developments in reduction of aircraft noise, on the one hand, and reduction of aircraft movements because aircraft are becoming bigger, on the other.
A further factor in the situation—and this may be temporary, but one does not know—is that there is a decline, because of the world-wide recession, in the number of people using airports. I think that all these points coincide with the view of both sides of this Committee that in this burial service today there is no question of a resurrection of the Maplin project.
Secondly, I am certain that the House will debate this matter. Indeed, I said this in my opening speech. Hon. Gentleman may say, "When?". The proper time to debate it will be soon after we get the regional document. A debate in the House now would be a false debate, because it would cover only the work done so far, with the one document available to hon. Members. Regional airports may have a considerable rôle to play in this; we do not yet know.
It is taking time to find out, but I think that the proper time for a full debate on airport strategy would be as soon as the Leader of the House could arrange it, after the regional document, which is coming out shortly after Easter,

has been made available, printed and digested and consultations have taken place on it. That would be the proper time to do it.

Mr. Higgins: Would the Minister indicate the exact scope of the document? I was not clear whether a third document was to come later on.
My other observation, so that we may look at the matter in an overall manner, concerns the first document. There is a map of the regional context in relation to the various London airports. I find it horrifying that large areas of Sussex, for example, are not described as areas of outstanding natural beauty when, in my view, they certainly are. Leaving that on one side, would it be possible for the second document to include an all-Britain map, or an overall United Kingdom map, giving the various journey times by rail and road? That would be helpful. It will not be easy to bring the two together unless the whole thing is set out in a single map. We need journey times by rail or road rather than distances. The rail service to Birmingham, for example, is a vastly different proposition from the rail service to other parts of the country.

Mr. Oakes: I shall certainly take note of the hon. Gentleman's suggestions in the preparation of the regional document. I am certain that information of the kind that he wants will be in the document, because the main concern of the airports strategy is to study the regions, not only from the aspect of those which generate their own traffic, but to consider whether the traffic from the regions which at present comes into London Airport might be better dealt with by the regional airports.
Time is important. The hon. Gentleman is right. Distance in miles does not matter. It is distance in time from the airport into London that is the crucial consideration. That, too, will be a major concern of those preparing the document I agree that it is essential to have the two documents together, but I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said about the map and the train times, and so on, as distinct from distances. I feel fairly certain, however, that those preparing the new document will bear those factors in mind.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a third document. There will not be a third document. When the two documents have come in and we have considered them, and had consultations on them, there may be a Government response to them. That response would bring in a third document, but that would happen after extensive debate inside and outside the House.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the firing range. The clearance of buried ordnance was started at Maplin but confined to the areas on the periphery of the ranges. Firing has continued while that work was in progress. The Ministry of Defence did not give up possession when work on the project was halted. It remains in ownership, and I understand that the use of the range is continuing.
The trial bank was not included in the money under the Maplin Development Authority. It was included in the initial debt for work on the trial bank.

Mr. Higgins: I apologise for backtracking on one point, so to speak. Is the Minister, being responsible for the environmental side, content with the position he has just described of the firing range? In Committee, will the hon. Gentleman provide estimates of what the cost of alternatives would be, because I notice that this area in the South is quite important and is something of a loss to the environment? Often we do not go into these matters in as much detail as we should. We tend to look at the broad question. Clearly, the issue must be seen against the background of the public expenditure aspect. I was not clear what were the hon. Gentleman's views in respect of the environment factor.

Mr. Oakes: The hon. Gentleman may be right, but I am certain that it would not be proper to debate the matter at length on Second Reading or in Committee on the Bill. There is always this dilemma. I took part in a debate in the House last year on Ministry of Defence land, a matter which always has an environmental effect. On the other hand, we need defence, we need firing ranges, and we need practice. The secret is to put defence areas in the right place. There has been a firing range at Foulness for decades.

Mr. Wakeham: I should like to draw to the Minister's attention that the considerable number of people living in the area believe that the environment is protected by the range being there, considering the alternatives that might happen in the vicinity. While I agree that matter is outside the scope of the Bill, I wanted to make that comment.

Mr. Oakes: It is a two-edged weapon. The hon. Gentleman is right. But there is the fact, too, that many people say that the obvious place for such defence areas is the Highlands of Scotland and so on, especially for firing ranges. But defence of the realm is necessary. Practice is therefore necessary. It has an environmental impact, and the secret is to get the right thing at the right place. There has been a range at Foulness Sands for many years, and from my knowledge and memory of the situation when Maplin was being discussed, the hon. Gentleman's constituents preferred the firing range to the airport at that time.

Mr. Tebbit: So would the wild life prefer it.

Mr. Oakes: We have not had many complaints about the Ministry of Defence's use of the land. But it would not be proper in Committee to go into that aspect on this Bill, nor is it proper for me to do so now.
The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) raised a matter concerning repeal of Section 61(1)(i) of the Land Drainage Act 1930. This is to remove an amendment to the 1930 Act which was made in the Maplin Development Act 1973. It added the Maplin Development Authority to the list of those undertakings enjoying certain protections under the Land Drainage Act 1930, dealing with works carried out by drainage authorities. The provision is a purely technical result of an amendment to the Act.

Mr. Tebbit: Can the Minister help at all with the question I raised about the expenditure on the search for the range to replace Foulness, which was undertaken by the Ministry of Defence?

Mr. Oakes: I am fairly certain that it would not be included in the expenditure with which we are dealing. That would


be the Ministry of Defence expenditure under another head and another Vote. The search for an alternative site would not come into any of the figures that we have discussed today. No doubt in Committee, the proceedings of which should not take long, we can deal with points arising under particular clauses.

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:

Williams, Sir Thomas (Chairman)

Mr. Bean

Mr. Harold Boardman

Mr. Carter-Jones

Mr. Dunn

Mr Higgins

Mr. Oakes

Mr. Tebbit

Mr. Townsend

Mr. Wakeham

Question put and agreed to. Ordered,

That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Maplin Development Authority (Dissolution) Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.

Committee rose at thirteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.